Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

Flail · Post by **Flail** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:20 am

Question for debate:
Can one be a true Christian and still have doubts and uncertainty about some or all of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, the inerrancy of scripture etc?

Darias · Post by **Darias** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:14 am

Flail wrote:Question for debate:
Can one be a true Christian and still have doubts and uncertainty about some or all of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, the inerrancy of scripture etc?

Might I also add that there are many Agnostic Christians who believe very deeply in some or all of those things listed above, but admit their lack of established knowledge based upon indisputable evidence.

And for those Christians who are not Agnostic, even famous believers have exercised doubt, yet retained their "true-Christian" status -- at least according to how others saw fit to define them.

But when you start nit picking about who is and who isn't a true Christian, you get about a million different answers. There are some Christians who say any belief in Evolution (micro or macro) renders you in danger of hellfire. There are some that say that without Baptism there is no salvation. There is rarely one thing that all Christians can agree to, apart from "I follow the teachings of Jesus." And even that's an empty statement unless defined. If you define Christ' teachings as the whole of the Bible, or if you define it as hellfire preaching, or if you define it as serving God -- all of it changes from person to person...

However the one constant is the idea of the golden rule -- or Jesus' version of it. Unfortunately, some Christians nowadays don't like the application of it... but in the broadest sense, most Christians can agree to this.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:50 am

Gee, how did I guess that this would turn into a debate on evolution itself by me merely stating that my observation that the ONLY contentions it seems the "Liberals" may have is with Macro-evolution and gay rights. Not like my original point was asking if there was any OTHER contentions or anything. I specifically said I don't want to turn this into a debate on Macro-Evolution but only on the actual issues of contention, which seem to ONLY be involving Macro-evolution and so-called "Gay rights". So I guess by the fact I've had to repeat this three times and have not had any objection to this, I think I may be right when I say that these are the ONLY objections there are.

No, because your position has the ultimate missing link, and no explanation of how things are made or done

.

So Macro-evolutionary theory does on all things? Fascinating.

And your position literally requires ignoring everything we've learned over the last 150 years..

I'd say the same thing goes for yours. In fact, Darwin lamented on the lack of any real tangible proof of Transition. So did Gould.

Hence, your argument is based entirely on the lack there of any evidence what-so-ever....

Same with yours, which is based purely on conjecture that ignores massive gaps with only "Micro-evolution" as the basis of proof, which does not fit so perfectly with Macro. You are just as well saying "The Bat Wing just evolved...whether we know how or not", how is that not pushing an idea based on no actual evidence whatsoever? Do you consider the bat having wings to be all the evidence you need? Do you acknowledge that there are in fact major gaps? I could also show the issues of things like the evolution of arched feet. Try to find anything in this article that asserts how it happened.

http://www.jbjs.org/article.aspx?Volume=6&page=56

https://nbsubscribe.missouri.edu/news-r ... evolution/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010983/

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to imagine just how the spring in the step happened through "evolution". I'd say that one's even worse than the Bat Wing to figure out.

Your position is denied because there is literally nothing to consider.

False statement. The gaps involved are plenty to consider. Like I said, dismissing them is tantamount to dishonesty.

Especially when consciousness can't exist without cause.. Perhaps you can explain the evolution of that?

Perhaps YOU can explain the evolution of Consciousness considering you're the one defending Macro-evolution. As if this is somehow relevant to anything I said. Again, I must be psychic how I predicted this would go into a tangent about evolution itself.

... Lastly, you are easily dismissed just by pointing to reality itself..

Getting desperate are we?

Pantheism alone enough to dismiss your argument :/

Care to back this statement or kindly retract?

Hence, our denial of your position is based purely on evidence.

You have no evidence, you have purely conjecture based on certain findings, and that conjecture has quite a fill gaps and landmines that you casually ignore and hope to sweep under the table.

Why? Well, I don't deny the Pantheist's GOD's existence do I?.. Why is that? And more importantly, do you deny the existence of the Pantheist GOD?

Can anyone ELSE explain this Pantheism comparison he constantly alludes to? I've made it more than clear I'm a semi-Panentheist, as were most Ancient Jews I'd say.

I wonder how much honesty we will get here..

From you? Practically none it seems. And I challenge anyone else to disagree.

Your position is entirely comparable to flat Earthers. Many of which are Christians.. And the bible actually has verses on this issue. So how much of your religion do you actually believe in?

My religion is more or less 2nd-temple era Nazarene-style. So that's a thread on its own. Why don't you start a new thread on this and I'll be happy to answer questions on what I believe where it belongs. Does anyone else disagree that this is a major tangent that has nothing to do with what I brought up which is that the ONLY two contentions seem to be about gay-rights and denial of Macro-evolution, which a sizeable minority of non-creationist-affiliated biologists deny as well?

It's not changing the subject, it's stating a fact. It's like asking you to show me GOD hand crafting snowflakes..

100 Tokens to anyone else who can demonstrate that this is not changing the subject.

Please explain to me in one paragraph or less of how consciousness works, and then explain to me why it's so complex and can't exist without cause.. But of course your argument ignores observed instances of macro-evolution because you require intentionally not understanding what macro-evolution is in order to deny it..

200 Tokens to anyone else who can explain how THIS is not changing the subject from Bat wings.

And I could go on and list man examples.. However, I have another question. What practical applications in terms of science comes from Creationist pseudoscience vs evolutionary science in the medical arena?

Okay, so that's a refusal to get into the issue of bat wings. I gave three articles, I said quote from them anything that proves your case. Looks like you don't want to do that. And looks like you don't want to answer my original question of what OTHER objections there are than "Gay-rights" and denial Macro-evolution. I think I've proven my case that those are the ONLY two objections so far.

Evolution Theory in modern medicine:

That would be the Micro-evolution I mentioned. Like I said, when people mix and match Macro and Micro, I'd say that's tantamount to dishonesty as well.

There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.

Yes, micro-evolution. Macro is pure conjecture which has little to do with Micro.

It provides a complementary scientific approach to the present mechanistic explanations that dominate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_science]medical science, and particularly modern medical education. Researchers in the field of evolutionary medicine have suggested that evolutionary biology should not simply be an optional topic in medical school, but instead should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences.

I got no objection with Micro evolution, especially my favorite subject in Biology, Epigenetics. Gives Lamarck some vindication.

Such adaptations concern:

The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individuals immune system.
The processes, constraints and trade-offs of human evolution.
The evolved responses that enable individuals to protect, heal and recuperate themselves from infections and injuries such as immunity, fever, and sickness behavior, and the processes that regulate their deployment to maximize fitness.
How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene.

We also have this:

Antibiotic resistance

Microorganisms evolve resistance through natural selection acting upon random mutation. Once a gene conferring resistance arises to counteract an antibiotic, not only can that bacteria thrive, but it can spread that gene to other types of bacteria through horizontal gene transfer of genetic information by plasmid exchange. It is unclear whether the genetic information responsible for antibiotic resistance typically arises from an actual mutation, or is already present in the gene pool of the population of the organism in question.

For more details on this topic, see antibiotic resistance

Virulence[/quote]

So like I said, trying to mix and match Micro with Macro is basically shucking and jiving when it comes to the subject. Find me a Creationist who disagrees with Micro-evolution. Please.

The effect of organisms upon their host can vary from being symbioticcommensals that are beneficial, to pathogens that reduce fitness. Many pathogens produce virulence factors that directly cause disease, or manipulate their host to allow them to thrive and spread. Since a pathogens fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offspring to other hosts, it was thought at one time, that virulence moderated and it evolved toward commensality. However, this view is now questioned by Ewald.

For more details on this topic, see virulence, virulence factors and optimal virulence
Immune evasion

It's almost as if...you completely ignored what I said about Micro-evolution the first time.

[

quote]The success of any pathogen depends upon its ability to evade host immunity. Therefore, pathogens evolve methods that enable them to infect a host, and then evade detection and destruction by its immune system. These include hiding within host cells, within a protective capsule (as with M. tuberculosis), secreting compounds that misdirect the host's immune response, binding its antibodies, rapidly changing surface markers, or masking them with the hosts own molecules.

For more details on this topic, see manipulation of the immune system by pathogens, andevasion of the innate immune system

You can also reference this post:

ref:If%20you%20accept%20microevolution[/quote]

That thread does not in any way prove that Macro is built on Micro, or show evidence for it. Feel free to quote from it anything that does.

The evidence we have far exceeds any thing you have in your corner... If fact, everything we have learned from self-organizing systems and complex adaptive systems has come primarily from life. Yes lots comes from processes in dealing with non life.. But you would be desperate at grasping for straws when trying to play on the same field.. You may as well scream conspiracy theory like the flat earthers do... Yeah, cause all these people are out to attack your religion! :

The observed evidence is purely for Micro-evolution, again, saying anything more is tantamount to dishonesty.

And here is a lot of things we learned from self-organizing organisms, Genes, DNA, and the processes we find in the evolution of life:

We've learned that Genes and DNA structure itself doesn't have much evidence of it changing, only the internals, like in Epigenetics and Neo-Lamarckian ideas.

CalResCo, an extensive website about complexity, self-organization and related subjects, including a self-organizing systems FAQ
PCC- Complexity Theory Resources, including Lecture notes on "Complexity: A New Science For A Postmodern World "
Complex Adaptive Systems and Artificial Life: an extensive list of links including conferences
Phil Goetz's complexity page, including a [url=http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/%7Egoetz/dict.html]complexity dictionary
Yaneer Bar Yam's Guide to Complex Systems
the Complexity Digest: a weekly list of summaries of articles related to complexity that appeared in various journals, a most useful service provided by G. Mayer-Kress
Evolution of Complex Systems: Umur Ozkul's collection of thoughts, essay and links
T. Tolman's Complexity of the Universe page
Complexity Online: a quite elaborate server with Hypermedia papers and pointers to other places
Complexity International: refereed electronic journal on Complex Systems Research
Information on Complex Adaptive Systems in different parts of the Internet
Bruce Edmonds's extensive Bibliography on Measures of Complexity
Santa Fe Institute for the Sciences of Complexity (ftp-server)
Science on the Edge of Chaos: an interactive multimedia service on complexity and chaos including a series of TV programmes
Nonlinearity and Complexity home page at Democritus University of Thrace
Center for Complex Systems Research
Australian National University Bioinformatics
Non-linear Science E-print archive with papers and conference announcements on chaos, adaptation, self-organization etc.
Complex Systems Links on the Web
Complexity, Complex Systems and Chaos: [at] Brint (Business & Technology Research)
resources relevant to the journal "Complexity"
Self-organizing systems Home page (mostly about cybernetic philosophy)
Self-Organizing Systems: a tutorial on the processes and patterns of organization and complexity in natural systems, by Ethan H. Decker
Complexity discussions from the point of view of constructivism and Robert Rosen's theories
Complex Systems research: an extensive list of links
Parameterized Complexity Home Page -- Todd Wareham, U Victoria
Complexity Home Page at Virginia Commonwealth University
[url=http://bayes.wustl.edu/]Bayesian Theory As Extended Logic -- Ed Jaynes
An Introduction to Synergetics
Chaos, Complexity, and Everything Else: a long list of links on chaos, complexity, artificial inteligence, genetic algorithms, and fractals
New England Complex Systems Institute, including the self-organizing, peer-reviewed Interjournal
Complex Adaptive Systems in Finance and strategy, by Mark White

Alife, Evolutionary Systems and Simulations

Artificial Life Online service with lots of info (news, bibliography, journals, ...)
The New Alife Database: Searchable Database of Alife-Related Sites Gathered by a Search Bot
T.S. Ray: An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology (paper on artificial life)
Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems research at the University of Sussex
Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab
Interactive genetic art (evolves according to user preferences)
Genetically programmed music
FAQ's on Genetic Algorithms
[url=ftp://ftp.cognet.ucla.edu/pub/alife]Artificial Life[/url] ftp server
Karl Sims' Virtual Creatures: 3D, animated "life forms", developed through simulated evolution
Intelligent Systems: Brendan Kitts's reflections on life, AI, and their future developments, with many useful references
CWRU Autonomous Agents Research Group
MIT Media Lab Autonomous Agents Group, headed by Pattie Maes
Intelligent Software Agents
Web resources on Intelligent Software Agents
University of Vienna Dep. of Theoretical Biology, with research on systems theory of evolution, alife, constructivism, cognition and evolutionary epistemology
Boids , Flocks, Herds, and Schools: a Distributed Behavioral Model
The Swarm simulation system: a software system for complex system simulation devloped at SFI
Liverpool Biocomputation Group (Announcements)
Brian Keely's bibliography on Artificial Life
Boston University's Center for Adaptive Systems
Evolutionary Systems and Artificial Life: lecture notes by Luis Rocha
Bibliography of Alife publications: a very rich collection of online papers, maintained by Ezequiel Di Paolo, covering topics such as complexity, self-organization, evolution, social behavior, robotics, etc.
Biota.org: an organization stimulating the development of digital tools and environments for the study of living systems, with impressive visual and virtual reality examples of digital organisms
Nicholas Gessler's site on artificial culture and computational anthropology

---

We can also address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... rFact.html

Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):

Is there anything in there that's not having to do with Micro-evolution and proto-Epigenetics?

And this is by far more than what you can provide us..

What have you provided exactly? Proof of what I already said I agree with? Or are you trying to say that there's something about Macro-evolution that's been proven there?

Nope, because I am saying you have a right to hold your view even if it rests in bigotry.
Good, at least you admit that I have a right to my view that such things like "Gay rights" should be up to vote.

The issue here is that nobody is making you gay, or be a polygamist..

Non-sequitur. Where did I say anything about such?

And you don't see them trying to prevent you from being a Christian.

Did I say they were?

I am not trying condescending, I am just making a point.. I could care less if another man gives another man a mutually agreed upon ride in the privacy of his own home.. It doesn't effect my life at all..

That's fine, but I believe the people should have the right to decide what defines marriage so long as the government has its hands in it. I personally object to government having ANY say in "marriage", but if governments want to butt in, then the democratic process should be followed.

It would be different if they tried to make me gay via legislation ect like Christian's trying to make them straight via legislation.. Worse yet, Christians in America, many but not all, actually think they own marriage, or the right to deny people to get married... People making a big deal over nothing..
What they're making a big deal over is the right of the people to decide what constitutes an institution that the government shouldn't be involved with but decided to involve itself with. I personally don't care, I may find it objectionable personally, but I take stake in that I want Polygamy legalized, and I find it unfair that one form of banned marriage is federally now allowed but another is not.

Who cares how many wives or husbands there are.. Doesn't bother me any.. And you govern your own life to your own beliefs to which are subject to secular common law. And Mandated allowance argument of complaint about not being able to control someone's life in accordance to your religious beliefs ect.
But it's about the people's right to decide. If a state decides to outlaw Polygamy, that should be their right, not the Federal government. Likewise, the people should have the right to decide what is and isn't allowed, whether it's a religious issue or not. 52% of Californians voted against it. And California is pretty Liberal.

Many animals are to some extent when under pressure..
Not just under pressure, many animals are cannibalistic regardless.

But naturally speaking this isn't a common thing...

Sorry, humans were mostly Cannibalistic until recently according to the people on "your" side. Most American Indian tribes indulged in it at some point as well. And African tribes. And Asian tribes. And European.

http://news.discovery.com/human/early-h ... 10706.html

Humans were technically herbivores prior to becoming omnivores.

Link please. Back it or retract it.
However, your statement here really didn't address the issue and is just drifting the subject of human breeding.

No, I made a comparison of what humans have a history of being.

Heck the divorce rate over 60 percent, and many more remain in unhappy marriages for several reasons...

I am aware of the high divorce rate, and I attribute it many factors that are fit for another thread topic (involving lack of foresight, bad choices, bad priorities, lust over substance, weakness of resolve, etc.)

Such as financial support, being afraid of being a lone, or many other reasons.

All poor reasons for people to get married. But nonetheless, women overwhelmingly seek to get married, it's not just cultural. They often complain that most men today don't want to. (Often not considering the fact that men can much easier get the milk without buying the cow than ever before)

But yes there are those whom end up happy till the end, and that seems to be what people want..
It most certainly DOES seem to be what most women want.

However, the animal nature overrides what you want.

A major theme in religions....

Christians think they can control natural instincts..
And we can if we have enough discipline and resolve. Most don't.

So it's interesting when you see Christian families struggle with that issue, or have a teenage daughter that is pregnant, or a son that is gay ect.. That monkey wrench is a good dose of reality..
What reality? The reality of poor discipline, bad choices, wanton indulgence, bad planning, and reliance on the safety nets available?

Humans also almost went extinct.. do the math.. And why stop? It's called agriculture, and the fact you can get your food at your local grocery store.

Agriculture is very recent in "your" time view, and it most certainly didn't replace all forms of meat sustenance. Why not kill off the old and useless in this logic?

Yeah, we evolved..
Evolution took place during the shift to agriculture in your "time line"?

And notice cannibalism is still present in areas of the world where food is scarce, or in undeveloped 3rd world countries ect.

Food was not and is not necessarily scarce in places where Cannibalism was rife. The Texas Natives and the Arawaks were not in a paucity of available food sources. The logic that the Aztecs lacked sources of protein is rubbish.

It's easy to sit there from a position of being well fed to make that argument.. Survival instincts are not exactly weak... Anyways, here is an interesting article:
So then, if food becomes scarce again, should we resume?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... evolution/

And here is something interesting:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... e-disease/
Hmm, by this logic...there's a BENEFIT to Cannibalism...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/scien ... wanted=all

Toads do lol ... seriously, you are going off on unrelated topics of discussion from what was being discussed.
Wait, you're telling ME that I'm going off on unrelated topics of discussion when my original point was that the only two points of contention are denial of Macro-evolution and "gay rights"? I was making a point in relation to what you said that humans are geared to be polyamorous that we are also geared to be Cannibalistic, which you are doing a fine job proving.
Stop and take a good look at the world around you..
What an answer.

STD's are a risk no matter what.
And quite a big risk for a species that is "Supposed to be polyandrous". Why not have every woman be a prostitute by your logic? Would you want to remain with a woman who's had hundreds of partners?
And non-monogamousity in the human species would greatly hurt genetic diversity to which could make humans more prone to disease and genetic defects.

Wait, did you mean to say non-polygamousity? I don't see why it would greatly hurt genetic diversity whatsoever. Do all your brothers and sisters have to come from different fathers for there to be sufficient "genetic diversity"? I don't see why this much more "Genetic diversity" would be helpful.

If you think humans were designed to be monogamous, you are severely lacking evidence for that.
Cough...STDS....cough (your thing about it being a risk doesn't answer the question).

And that would take every bit of effort to ignore the real world out there.

In the real world, if all people were as polyamarous as you'd (and they'd) like it to be, there'd be nothing but poor STD-stricken folk.

This doesn't mean it's not something you shouldn't stride for, or desire to have. A monogamous relationship does have it's benefits. So you never know, we might some day evolve into a monogamous species.
Perhaps we already are a monogamous species and STDs (and other things like Oral cancer and such) are the goads that punish those who go against the grain?

Your objections are noted
.

Thank you. So do you have any other contentions to what Fundamentalists/Literalists/etc believe other than these two subjects? Does ANYONE ?
However, it's interesting that creationists have to ignore it. Ignore such things as practical applications we derive from evolutionary science. practical applications such as:
We don't ignore Micro-evolution generally. Or Epigenetics which is right related. What I ignore is people who try to say things that likely couldn't possibly happen by any real logical possibility like Bats evolving wings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... -2013.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17058066

Or:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
That's all nice, good thing I already believe in Micro-evolution and Neo-Lamarckian Epigenetics.

So I ask again, does anyone have ANY OTHER objection to what traditionalists believe, that they "impede science and social progress", or can we safely conclude that denial of Macro-evolution and so-called "Gay rights" is the ONLY, and I mean ONLY objections?

I offer 100 tokens to anyone who can offer any other serious widespread objections to "scientific" and "social progress".

Flail · Post by **Flail** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:39 am

Darias wrote:

However the one constant is the idea of the golden rule -- or Jesus' version of it. Unfortunately, some Christians nowadays don't like the application of it... but in the broadest sense, most Christians can agree to this.

Most ethical and religious traditions include some form of the Golden Rule (Doctrine of ethical reciprocity); it is neither unique or original to Christianity. The Rule is a common sense implicit 'contract' of morality adopted in some form by most societies as foundational to morality, justice and social order.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:04 am

So Macro-evolutionary theory does on all things? Fascinating.

Wha?.. Who made claim?

I'd say the same thing goes for yours. In fact, Darwin lamented on the lack of any real tangible proof of Transition. So did Gould.

We are well beyond Darwin

Same with yours, which is based purely on conjecture that ignores massive gaps with only "Micro-evolution" as the basis of proof, which does not fit so perfectly with Macro. You are just as well saying "The Bat Wing just evolved...whether we know how or not", how is that not pushing an idea based on no actual evidence whatsoever?

It's not biased what-so-ever.. And we do know how.. It's called electromagnetism. And you clearly didn't read the article.. BTW micro and macro evolution are the same thing with only the difference of time scales. They are caused by the same mechanisms.. But of course we can't expect you to understand that..

Do you consider the bat having wings to be all the evidence you need?

No, because I don't rest my entire argument on a single cherry picked example for the purpose of playing a dishonest GOD of the Gaps game.

Do you acknowledge that there are in fact major gaps? I could also show the issues of things like the evolution of arched feet. Try to find anything in this article that asserts how it happened.

Major Gaps in evolutionary theory? No... Gaps in having a complete and full picture of every living thing? Sure, there are lots of gaps.. But not in terms of genetics.

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to imagine just how the spring in the step happened through "evolution". I'd say that one's even worse than the Bat Wing to figure out.

Pretty hard to imagine magic wand doing it.. And btw, foot arches could be a consequence of terrain and being barefoot..

False statement. The gaps involved are plenty to consider. Like I said, dismissing them is tantamount to dishonesty.

Dismissing an imaginary entity that magically only makes new species in the bushes right?

Perhaps YOU can explain the evolution of Consciousness considering you're the one defending Macro-evolution. As if this is somehow relevant to anything I said. Again, I must be psychic how I predicted this would go into a tangent about evolution itself.

You're avoiding... tsk tsk.. Btw I can.. An example would be a Nine month pregnancy.

Getting desperate are we?

I am? Do tell us how you design and create reality itself so yourself can exist. I don't see how that makes me desperate..

Care to back this statement or kindly retract?

You do understand that I was once a Pantheist right? Sure, Pantheism is the belief that reality itself and it's rules to which governs everything is GOD.. Do you not require existence to exist? After all, you are begging us to believe your supposed god exists right? .. Which is higher on the totem pole here? Your GOD, or the Pantheist GOD to which your GOD would be slave to require in order to exist?..

You have no evidence, you have purely conjecture based on certain findings, and that conjecture has quite a fill gaps and landmines that you casually ignore and hope to sweep under the table.

Yep, the Earth is flat.

Can anyone ELSE explain this Pantheism comparison he constantly alludes to? I've made it more than clear I'm a semi-Panentheist, as were most Ancient Jews I'd say.

let's evaluate that..

Panentheism (Latin for All in God) posits the view that there is a God who encompasses the Universe but was not completely identical with that said Universe: in other words, that God encompasses the physical Universe, but also transcends it.

That's Great.. Pantheism is still higher on the totem pole As it's all inclusive and rules, contains, and governs all there is. It's literally that of everything. .And your argument is closer to Pantheistic Sollipsism where you seem to be trying to Argue that Existence is a Giant brain and that you are nothing but a non-entity.. A figment of it's imagination. Basically, GOD with a multi-personality disorder.

And do explain how you are only "Semi-Panentheism" ? You either adhere to it's basic premise or you don't.

From you? Practically none it seems. And I challenge anyone else to disagree.

Umm nope, your delusion I am being dishonest is rather silly.. But believe it if you like.

My religion is more or less 2nd-temple era Nazarene-style. So that's a thread on its own. Why don't you start a new thread on this and I'll be happy to answer questions on what I believe where it belongs. Does anyone else disagree that this is a major tangent that has nothing to do with what I brought up which is that the ONLY two contentions seem to be about gay-rights and denial of Macro-evolution, which a sizeable minority of non-creationist-affiliated biologists deny as well?

Ignoring all evidence as conspiracy evidence on Macro-evolution is indeed equal to what flat Earthers do.. So yeah, the Earth is Flat.

100 Tokens to anyone else who can demonstrate that this is not changing the subject.

You brought up evolution.... I addressed it.

200 Tokens to anyone else who can explain how THIS is not changing the subject from Bat wings.

So you can't explain it.. And don't you think the problem of consciousness can't exist without cause isn't a bigger issue than how a bat's wing forms? This isn't changing a subject, I am demonstrating your GOD of the Gaps game. Except for the fact that my example is a bigger problem than a bats wing... Do tell us, what is more complex... An unconscious rock, or a conscious entity? Which do you think requires more cause? How about empty space vs an conscious entity?.. It's funny because existence doesn't require a conscious entity to exist at all. Conscious entities are actually entirely irrelevant to existence as a whole..

Okay, so that's a refusal to get into the issue of bat wings.

It's not.. it's addressing evolution specifically. This to which you are trying to deny by cherry picking examples that understudied for the purpose of the GOD of the GAPS.. That's called being dishonest. So tell me why evolutionary science produces practical scientific applications to which include many facets that deal with computer engineering and medical research and medicine.. You're the one that want to claim it's all a crock..

I gave three articles, I said quote from them anything that proves your case.

Your problem is that your articles didn't disprove anything, and that scientists have a pretty good idea of how that might have happened in the embryonic stages of the bats development. Hence, they are at least looking for a real answer as to where your stance is equal to:

"I'm intellectually lazy, too difficult to think about it, and thus GOD DONE IT"

So is the Earth flat? According to your bible it should be.. Climbing to the top of a Mountain to see the whole world is a pretty difficult thing to do on an Oblate spherical Earth.

Macro-evolution.

Someone that believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution after being told they are the same thing with the exception of time scales is just intentional ignorance. Especially when knowing the same mechanisms are at work.. More specifically electromagnetism.. Life and everything around it is electromagnetic phenomenon with the exception of pressure waves and gravity to which can also effect evolutionary processes..

That would be the Micro-evolution I mentioned. Like I said, when people mix and match Macro and Micro, I'd say that's tantamount to dishonesty as well.

Incorrect. It deals with both macro and micro... And they aren't mixing them, they are governed by exactly the same mechanisms.

Yes, micro-evolution. Macro is pure conjecture which has little to do with Micro.

The Earth is flat.

I got no objection with Micro evolution, especially my favorite subject in Biology, Epigenetics. Gives Lamarck some vindication.

Face Palm! We are well beyond Lamark and Darwin... So here is a fun game.. Tell me what the mechanisms are for micro-evolution, and then tell me what the mechanisms are for marco.. Hell, tell me how many micro changes do you allow in your supposed argument? Let me guess, they magically stop so you can hold on to your religious beliefs. I almost wonder if you can tell me the difference between a dog, alligator, or human in this picture:

So like I said, trying to mix and match Micro with Macro is basically shucking and jiving when it comes to the subject. Find me a Creationist who disagrees with Micro-evolution. Please.

Incorrect.. Same mechanisms..

It's almost as if...you completely ignored what I said about Micro-evolution the first time.
It's almost you completely ignore what the mechanisms are, and what evolution is... All macro evolution is, is lots of micro-evolutionary changes that eventually lead to speciation.

That thread does not in any way prove that Macro is built on Micro, or show evidence for it. Feel free to quote from it anything that does.
Actually this thread proves it entirely. How many humans were using electronics in the biblical era? How do sand dunes form over time? How do you think Salamanders in California are diverging into different species...

That's macro-evolution.... And so is this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07285.html
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1922528

[youtube][/youtube]

But don't worry, the denial button is still available for your pushing..

The observed evidence is purely for Micro-evolution, again, saying anything more is tantamount to dishonesty.
No, it's your dishonesty because you are not educated in biology or evolutionary theory. Much less do so seem to grasp they follow the same mechanisms.

We've learned that Genes and DNA structure itself doesn't have much evidence of it changing, only the internals, like in Epigenetics and Neo-Lamarckian ideas.
LMAO!!.. hold on.. wait.. hold on.. you believe in micro-evolution and then you make that statement? Do you even listen to yourself?

Is there anything in there that's not having to do with Micro-evolution and proto-Epigenetics?
Curious, what makes you think DNA can't change over time? And the material quoted defies your premises as they deal with self-organizing systems , and complexity changes within complex adaptive systems. They deal with changes and feedback that result in increasing complexity and order from simple processes.. A lot of these deal with gene duplication processes, and deal with processes dealing with what's involved with macro evolution. Sure they will include your examples, but also defy your premises. These include the development of self-evolving and learning systems.

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/cdel ... /isaw3.pdf
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... 4698568521
http://static.usenix.org/event/usenix05 ... andani.pdf

So all I see in your argument is the denial that DNA doesn't ever change... And that is a load crap..:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7486016
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200304 ... _sys.shtml
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9704004592
http://www.mendeley.com/research/interc ... icroscopy/

What have you provided exactly? Proof of what I already said I agree with? Or are you trying to say that there's something about Macro-evolution that's been proven there?
The funny part about this is all I need to do is agree that micro evolution drives evolution lol. Lots of micros adding up over time can cause speciation And yes, those systems can demonstrate macro evolutionary changes over many micro changes.. Fun stuff!

Good, at least you admit that I have a right to my view that such things like "Gay rights" should be up to vote.
They shouldn't be up to vote.. If you want to know what it's like to live like that, you should visit Afghanistan, or some place like Sudan and Dafur. That's where that kind of bigotry rains supreme. You basically think we should vote to control other people's personals lives to adhere to your religious bigotry.
Did I say they were?
And yet you feel it should be up to a vote to make them follow your religion.

That's fine, but I believe the people should have the right to decide what defines marriage so long as the government has its hands in it. I personally object to government having ANY say in "marriage", but if governments want to butt in, then the democratic process should be followed.
Then why are you wanting to put gay marriage up to a vote? Hypocrisy of your own argument?

What they're making a big deal over is the right of the people to decide what constitutes an institution that the government shouldn't be involved with but decided to involve itself with. I personally don't care, I may find it objectionable personally, but I take stake in that I want Polygamy legalized, and I find it unfair that one form of banned marriage is federally now allowed but another is not.
Marriage is not an institution. I fail to find the institution of marriage anywhere. And theocracy by popular vote is exactly why Government needs to step in and keep it secular. Because we all know a democracy can lead to a dictatorship and theocracy without having checks and balances to protect the minority from the majority persecution.

But it's about the people's right to decide. If a state decides to outlaw Polygamy, that should be their right, not the Federal government. Likewise, the people should have the right to decide what is and isn't allowed, whether it's a religious issue or not. 52% of Californians voted against it. And California is pretty Liberal.
Ok, someone should outlaw your right to get married ect. Let's start taking away all your rights... We should begin there first.. right?

Not just under pressure, many animals are cannibalistic regardless.
Yes, we are all carbon based life forms eating other carbon based life forms.. You're right, we are all cannibalistic by design.

Sorry, humans were mostly Cannibalistic until recently according to the people on "your" side. Most American Indian tribes indulged in it at some point as well. And African tribes. And Asian tribes. And European.

http://news.discovery.com/human/early-h ... 10706.html
I am aware of this..But I suppose we forget you don't believe in evolution or understand why we have mostly herbivore features. But you should ask your GOD why he created cannibalism.

Link please. Back it or retract it.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/t ... ating.html

No, I made a comparison of what humans have a history of being.
being what?

I am aware of the high divorce rate, and I attribute it many factors that are fit for another thread topic (involving lack of foresight, bad choices, bad priorities, lust over substance, weakness of resolve, etc.)
Welcome to the reality of the natural world.
All poor reasons for people to get married. But nonetheless, women overwhelmingly seek to get married, it's not just cultural.
Yes, because finding a male to mate with and having children is natural.. Marriage is irrelevant to that btw. Penguins don't get married, and nor do they need to. Regardless of seeking to get married, it won't change the fact our species is not monogamous. And yes it is cultural..

It most certainly DOES seem to be what most women want.
Yes because cause credit cards and jewelery and the natural instinct to have kids... The problem is, marriage more often fails. And you can't just blame that on the male...

A major theme in religions....
In general, natural instinct and drive will always win.. religion can't control that.

And we can if we have enough discipline and resolve. Most don't.
Good luck with that in concerning the real world.

What reality? The reality of poor discipline, bad choices, wanton indulgence, bad planning, and reliance on the safety nets available?
you can call it what you like.., but it's the natural order of things in the real world.

Agriculture is very recent in "your" time view, and it most certainly didn't replace all forms of meat sustenance. Why not kill off the old and useless in this logic?
That was kinda my point.. How common is cannibalism in Boston for example? And what makes you think I made an argument for killing off the old ect? How about this, ask your GOD why he created life to which must murder itself in order to reproduce and survive... Hence, what's the deal with the food chain? It's forced killing..

Evolution took place during the shift to agriculture in your "time line"?
How many people in America are eating other people atm? agriculture has a lot to do with it.

Food was not and is not necessarily scarce in places where Cannibalism was rife. The Texas Natives and the Arawaks were not in a paucity of available food sources. The logic that the Aztecs lacked sources of protein is rubbish.
On a majority basis it is.. This wasn't making a claim that it doesn't happen anywhere else.. And I do believe I mentioned primitive cultures being applicable to that more so than places like Boston.. But hey, life eats itself.. That which doesn't get eaten or die of other means carries on the torch.

So then, if food becomes scarce again, should we resume?
Put a bunch of people in a room and starve them and see what happens..It's not a matter of should, it's a matter of that it would likely happen regardless if you think it should or shouldn't.

Hmm, by this logic...there's a BENEFIT to Cannibalism...?
Apparently some species do benefit.. Maybe you can talk to your GOD about why frogs are eating other frogs ect.. Is that intelligent design?

Wait, you're telling ME that I'm going off on unrelated topics of discussion when my original point was that the only two points of contention are denial of Macro-evolution and "gay rights"? I was making a point in relation to what you said that humans are geared to be polyamorous that we are also geared to be Cannibalistic, which you are doing a fine job proving.
Actually I didn't bring up evolution or cannibalism.. you did..

What an answer.
No really, stop and look around you because that is the answer..

And quite a big risk for a species that is "Supposed to be polyandrous". Why not have every woman be a prostitute by your logic? Would you want to remain with a woman who's had hundreds of partners?
Most STD don't kill anyone.. And who said anything about prostitution? And it's not that I would want a woman who's had 100 partners.. Technically I wouldn't really know if they never say anything.. And it's missing the point.. Hence look outside, the human species is not a monogamous species.

Wait, did you mean to say non-polygamousity? I don't see why it would greatly hurt genetic diversity whatsoever. Do all your brothers and sisters have to come from different fathers for there to be sufficient "genetic diversity"? I don't see why this much more "Genetic diversity" would be helpful.
Polygamy doesn't require it being all brothers and sisters ect.. I dealt with the concept of more than one husband or wife... Incest however would result in genetic defects, and this was more to the point of why our species is not monogamous.
Cough...STDS....cough (your thing about it being a risk doesn't answer the question).
You can get an STD from anyone... STD's are not evidence of people supposedly supposed to be monogamous. That's some pretty weak evidence you have there.. Two virgins can give each other STDS btw..Oral sex can spread diseases like herpes and a few others. Go research Sexually transmitted infections (diseases) and learn how they are spread.

In the real world, if all people were as polyamarous as you'd (and they'd) like it to be, there'd be nothing but poor STD-stricken folk.
wrong..

Perhaps we already are a monogamous species and STDs (and other things like Oral cancer and such) are the goads that punish those who go against the grain?
Why punish? Why not simply fix the problem.. Peguins don't seem to be having this issue very much... Abusive Father figure sounds so rational right?

We don't ignore Micro-evolution generally. Or Epigenetics which is right related. What I ignore is people who try to say things that likely couldn't possibly happen by any real logical possibility like Bats evolving wings.
Sure we do.. It's called lots of micro-evolution governed by electromagnetism. The very same mechanisms that govern the processes from embryo to a new born baby. The baby being the macro-end product.. Your argument is about as bad as someone that might claim that babies can't form in the whom without GOD doing it and putting the puzzle pieces together.
That's all nice, good thing I already believe in Micro-evolution and Neo-Lamarckian Epigenetics.
Incorrect. This tells me you don't comprehend the video or the science what-so-ever.
I offer 100 tokens to anyone who can offer any other serious widespread objections to "scientific" and "social progress"
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

HOW CREATIONISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION:

And the following, provided by JackOL, is the type of argument Creationists use in debates such as these:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... ctive.html

Quote:
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.

This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwins time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.
you can also find recent positive gene mutations in the human species:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... eage-12397
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very- ... l-mutation
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40500?page=all
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -evolution
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.0030090
http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/beneficial.mutations

Yes, and gene duplication can occur to, or other means in which new traits and be introduced. You are delusional if you think this only happens in cases of recessive genes turning on or off...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4703000338
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /119.short

Those sighting the above:

S. D. Copley
Toward a Systems Biology Perspective on Enzyme EvolutionJ. Biol. Chem. January 2, 2012 287:3-10
Full Text (PDF)
A. Y.-F. Chang
and B.-Y. Liao

DNA Methylation Rebalances Gene Dosage after Mammalian Gene DuplicationsMol Biol Evol January 1, 2012 29:133-144
Abstract
Full Text
Full Text (PDF)
C. M. Hudson,
E. E. Puckett,
M. Bekaert,
J. C. Pires,
and G. C. Conant

Selection for Higher Gene Copy Number after Different Types of Plant Gene DuplicationsGenome Biol Evol December 15, 2011 3:1369-1380

Full Text (PDF)
A. Konrad,
A. I. Teufel,
J. A. Grahnen,
and D. A. Liberles

Toward a General Model for the Evolutionary Dynamics of Gene DuplicatesGenome Biol Evol November 1, 2011 3:1197-1209

Full Text (PDF)
N. R. Casewell,
S. C. Wagstaff,
R. A. Harrison,
C. Renjifo,
and W. Wuster

Domain Loss Facilitates Accelerated Evolution and Neofunctionalization of Duplicate Snake Venom Metalloproteinase Toxin GenesMol Biol Evol September 1, 2011 28:2637-2649

Full Text (PDF)
C. E. Arboleda-Bustos
and C. Segarra

The Dca Gene Involved in Cold Adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster Arose by Duplication of the Ancestral regucalcin GeneMol Biol Evol August 1, 2011 28:2185-2195

Full Text (PDF)
M. Bekaert,
P. P. Edger,
J. C. Pires,
and G. C. Conant

Two-Phase Resolution of Polyploidy in the Arabidopsis Metabolic Network Gives Rise to Relative and Absolute Dosage ConstraintsPlant Cell May 1, 2011 23:1719-1728

Full Text (PDF)
C. Deng,
C.- H. C. Cheng,
H. Ye,
X. He,
and L. Chen

Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflictProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA December 14, 2010 107:21593-21598

Full Text (PDF)
S.-L. Liu
and K. L. Adams

Dramatic Change in Function and Expression Pattern of a Gene Duplicated by Polyploidy Created a Paternal Effect Gene in the BrassicaceaeMol Biol Evol December 1, 2010 27:2817-2828

Full Text (PDF)
K. Nowick,
A. T. Hamilton,
H. Zhang,
and L. Stubbs

Rapid Sequence and Expression Divergence Suggest Selection for Novel Function in Primate-Specific KRAB-ZNF GenesMol Biol Evol November 1, 2010 27:2606-2617

Full Text (PDF)
A. J. Morash,
C. M. R. Le Moine,
and G. B. McClelland
Genome duplication events have led to a diversification in the CPT I gene family in fishAm. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. August 1, 2010 299:R579-R589

Full Text (PDF)
R. P. Meisel,
B. B. Hilldorfer,
J. L. Koch,
S. Lockton,
and S. W. Schaeffer

Adaptive Evolution of Genes Duplicated from the Drosophila pseudoobscura neo-X ChromosomeMol Biol Evol August 1, 2010 27:1963-1978

Full Text (PDF)
K. Geuten
and V. Irish

Hidden Variability of Floral Homeotic B Genes in Solanaceae Provides a Molecular Basis for the Evolution of Novel FunctionsPlant Cell August 1, 2010 22:2562-2578

Full Text (PDF)
A. C. Keebaugh
and J. W. Thomas

The Evolutionary Fate of the Genes Encoding the Purine Catabolic Enzymes in Hominoids, Birds, and ReptilesMol Biol Evol June 1, 2010 27:1359-1369

Full Text (PDF)
A. Himmelbach,
L. Liu,
U. Zierold,
L. Altschmied,
H. Maucher,
F. Beier,
D. Muller,
G. Hensel,
A. Heise,
A. Schutzendubel,
J. Kumlehn,
and P. Schweizer

Promoters of the Barley Germin-Like GER4 Gene Cluster Enable Strong Transgene Expression in Response to Pathogen AttackPlant Cell March 1, 2010 22:937-952

Full Text (PDF)
B. van Loo,
S. Jonas,
A. C. Babtie,
A. Benjdia,
O. Berteau,
M. Hyvonen,
and F. Hollfelder

An efficient, multiply promiscuous hydrolase in the alkaline phosphatase superfamilyProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA February 16, 2010 107:2740-2745

Full Text (PDF)
D. Farre
and M. M. Alba
Heterogeneous Patterns of Gene-Expression Diversification in Mammalian Gene DuplicatesMol Biol Evol February 1, 2010 27:325-335

Full Text (PDF)
S. F. Field
and M. V. Matz

Retracing Evolution of Red Fluorescence in GFP-Like Proteins from Faviina CoralsMol Biol Evol February 1, 2010 27:225-233

Full Text (PDF)
K. Nowick
and L. Stubbs

Lineage-specific transcription factors and the evolution of gene regulatory networksBriefings in Functional Genomics January 16, 2010 0:elp056v1-elp056

Full Text (PDF)
T. Lan,
Z.-L. Yang,
X. Yang,
Y.-J. Liu,
X.-R. Wang,
and Q.-Y. Zeng

Extensive Functional Diversification of the Populus Glutathione S-Transferase Supergene FamilyPlant Cell December 1, 2009 21:3749-3766

Full Text (PDF)
M. W. Hahn

Distinguishing Among Evolutionary Models for the Maintenance of Gene DuplicatesJ Hered September 1, 2009 100:605-617

Full Text (PDF)
C. Zou,
M. D. Lehti-Shiu,
F. Thibaud-Nissen,
T. Prakash,
C. R. Buell,
and S.-H. Shiu

Evolutionary and Expression Signatures of Pseudogenes in Arabidopsis and RicePlant Physiol. September 1, 2009 151:3-15

Full Text (PDF)
K. N. Rohmann,
D. L. Deitcher,
and A. H. Bass

Calcium-Activated Potassium (BK) Channels Are Encoded by Duplicate slo1 Genes in Teleost FishesMol Biol Evol July 1, 2009 26:1509-1521

Full Text (PDF)
N. P. West,
F. M. E. Chow,
E. J. Randall,
J. Wu,
J. Chen,
J. M. C. Ribeiro,
and W. J. Britton

Cutinase-like proteins of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: characterization of their variable enzymatic functions and active site identificationFASEB J. June 1, 2009 23:1694-1704

Full Text (PDF)
M. V. Han,
J. P. Demuth,
C. L. McGrath,
C. Casola,
and M. W. Hahn

Adaptive evolution of young gene duplicates in mammalsGenome Res May 1, 2009 19:859-867

Full Text (PDF)
C. J. Weadick
and B. S.W. Chang

Molecular Evolution of the {beta}{gamma} Lens Crystallin Superfamily: Evidence for a Retained Ancestral Function in {gamma}N Crystallins?Mol Biol Evol May 1, 2009 26:1127-1142

Full Text (PDF)
E. S. Kelleher
and T. A. Markow

Duplication, Selection and Gene Conversion in a Drosophila mojavensis Female Reproductive Protein FamilyGenetics April 1, 2009 181:1451-1465

Full Text (PDF)
W. Qian
and J. Zhang

Protein Subcellular Relocalization in the Evolution of Yeast Singleton and Duplicate GenesGenome Biol Evol January 1, 2009 1:198-204

Full Text (PDF)
S. Bershtein
and D. S. Tawfik
Ohno's Model Revisited: Measuring the Frequency of Potentially Adaptive Mutations under Various Mutational DriftsMol Biol Evol November 1, 2008 25:2311-2318

Full Text (PDF)
P. Juarez,
I. Comas,
F. Gonzalez-Candelas,
and J. J. Calvete

Evolution of Snake Venom Disintegrins by Positive Darwinian SelectionMol Biol Evol November 1, 2008 25:2391-2407

Full Text (PDF)
J. C. Opazo,
F. G. Hoffmann,
and J. F. Storz

Differential loss of embryonic globin genes during the radiation of placental mammalsProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA September 2, 2008 105:12950-12955

Full Text (PDF)
Q. Zhou,
G. Zhang,
Y. Zhang,
S. Xu,
R. Zhao,
Z. Zhan,
X. Li,
Y. Ding,
S. Yang,
and W. Wang

On the origin of new genes in DrosophilaGenome Res September 1, 2008 18:1446-1455

Full Text (PDF)
B. D. Rodgers
and D. K. Garikipati

Clinical, Agricultural, and Evolutionary Biology of Myostatin: A Comparative ReviewEndocr Rev August 1, 2008 29:513-534

Full Text (PDF)
S. Mungpakdee,
H.-C. Seo,
A. R. Angotzi,
X. Dong,
A. Akalin,
and D. Chourrout

Differential Evolution of the 13 Atlantic Salmon Hox ClustersMol Biol Evol July 1, 2008 25:1333-1343

Full Text (PDF)
M. W. Robinson,
J. F. Tort,
J. Lowther,
S. M. Donnelly,
E. Wong,
W. Xu,
C. M. Stack,
M. Padula,
B. Herbert,
and J. P. Dalton

Proteomics and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Cathepsin L Protease Family of the Helminth Pathogen Fasciola hepatica: Expansion of a Repertoire of Virulence-associated FactorsMol. Cell. Proteomics June 1, 2008 7:1111-1123

Full Text (PDF)
A. M. Wentzell
and D. J. Kliebenstein
Genotype, Age, Tissue, and Environment Regulate the Structural Outcome of Glucosinolate ActivationPlant Physiol. May 1, 2008 147:415-428

Full Text (PDF)
A. Prachumwat
and W.-H. Li
Gene number expansion and contraction in vertebrate genomes with respect to invertebrate genomesGenome Res February 1, 2008 18:221-232

Full Text (PDF)
T. Yuri,
R. T. Kimball,
E. L. Braun,
and M. J. Braun

Duplication of Accelerated Evolution and Growth Hormone Gene in Passerine BirdsMol Biol Evol February 1, 2008 25:352-361

Full Text (PDF)
A. Presser,
M. B. Elowitz,
M. Kellis,
and R. Kishony

The evolutionary dynamics of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein interaction network after duplicationProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA January 22, 2008 105:950-954

Full Text (PDF)
A. G. Koziol
and D. G. Durnford

Euglena Light-Harvesting Complexes Are Encoded by Multifarious Polyprotein mRNAs that Evolve in ConcertMol Biol Evol January 1, 2008 25:92-100

Full Text (PDF)
D. A. Johnson
and M. A. Thomas

The Monosaccharide Transporter Gene Family in Arabidopsis and Rice: A History of Duplications, Adaptive Evolution, and Functional DivergenceMol Biol Evol November 1, 2007 24:2412-2423

Full Text (PDF)
L. Goodstadt,
A. Heger,
C. Webber,
and C. P. Ponting

An analysis of the gene complement of a marsupial, Monodelphis domestica: Evolution of lineage-specific genes and giant chromosomesGenome Res July 1, 2007 17:969-981

Full Text (PDF)
Y. H. Gebhardt,
S. Witte,
H. Steuber,
U. Matern,
and S. Martens

Evolution of Flavone Synthase I from Parsley Flavanone 3beta-Hydroxylase by Site-Directed MutagenesisPlant Physiol. July 1, 2007 144:1442-1454

Full Text (PDF)
S. Bezhani,
C. Winter,
S. Hershman,
J. D. Wagner,
J. F. Kennedy,
C. S. Kwon,
J. Pfluger,
Y. Su,
and D. Wagner

Unique, Shared, and Redundant Roles for the Arabidopsis SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling ATPases BRAHMA and SPLAYEDPlant Cell February 1, 2007 19:403-416

Full Text (PDF)
C. R. Johnston,
C. O'Dushlaine,
D. A. Fitzpatrick,
R. J. Edwards,
and D. C. Shields

Evaluation of Whether Accelerated Protein Evolution in Chordates Has Occurred before, after, or Simultaneously with Gene DuplicationMol Biol Evol January 1, 2007 24:315-323

Full Text (PDF)
X. Yang,
G. A. Tuskan,
and Z.-M. Cheng
Divergence of the Dof Gene Families in Poplar, Arabidopsis, and Rice Suggests Multiple Modes of Gene Evolution after DuplicationPlant Physiol. November 1, 2006 142:820-830

Full Text (PDF)
P. C. Wainwright,
M. E. Alfaro,
D. I. Bolnick,
and C. D. Hulsey

Many-to-One Mapping of Form to Function: A General Principle in Organismal Design?Integr. Comp. Biol. April 1, 2005 45:256-262

Full Text (PDF)
J. Maciejowski,
J. H. Ahn,
P. G. Cipriani,
D. J. Killian,
A. L. Chaudhary,
J. I. Lee,
R. Voutev,
R. C. Johnsen,
D. L. Baillie,
K. C. Gunsalus,
D. H. A. Fitch,
and E. J. A. Hubbard

Autosomal Genes of Autosomal/X-Linked Duplicated Gene Pairs and Germ-Line Proliferation in Caenorhabditis elegansGenetics April 1, 2005 169:1997-2011

Full Text (PDF)
X. He
and J. Zhang

Rapid Subfunctionalization Accompanied by Prolonged and Substantial Neofunctionalization in Duplicate Gene EvolutionGenetics February 1, 2005 169:1157-1164

Full Text (PDF)
M. J. Prigge,
D. Otsuga,
J. M. Alonso,
J. R. Ecker,
G. N. Drews,
and S. E. Clark

Class III Homeodomain-Leucine Zipper Gene Family Members Have Overlapping, Antagonistic, and Distinct Roles in Arabidopsis DevelopmentPlant Cell January 1, 2005 17:61-76

Full Text (PDF)
T. H. Oakley,
Z. Gu,
E. Abouheif,
N. H. Patel,
and W.-H. Li

Comparative Methods for the Analysis of Gene-Expression Evolution: An Example Using Yeast Functional Genomic DataMol Biol Evol January 1, 2005 22:40-50

Full Text (PDF)
A. Reimann,
N. Nurhayati,
A. Backenkohler,
and D. Ober

Repeated Evolution of the Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid-Mediated Defense System in Separate Angiosperm LineagesPlant Cell October 1, 2004 16:2772-2784

Full Text (PDF)
E. M. Kramer,
M. A. Jaramillo,
and V. S. Di Stilio

Patterns of Gene Duplication and Functional Evolution During the Diversification of the AGAMOUS Subfamily of MADS Box Genes in AngiospermsGenetics February 1, 2004 166:1011-1023

Full Text (PDF)
V. Katju
and M. Lynch

The Structure and Early Evolution of Recently Arisen Gene Duplicates in the Caenorhabditis elegans GenomeGenetics December 1, 2003 165:1793-1803

Full Text (PDF)
F. Rodriguez-Trelles,
R. Tarrio,
and F. J. Ayala

Convergent neofunctionalization by positive Darwinian selection after ancient recurrent duplications of the xanthine dehydrogenase geneProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA November 11, 2003 100:13413-13417

Full Text (PDF)
W. L. Roelofs
and A. P. Rooney

Molecular genetics and evolution of pheromone biosynthesis in LepidopteraProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA August 5, 2003 100:9179-9184

Full Text (PDF)
S. Rombauts,
K. Florquin,
M. Lescot,
K. Marchal,
P. Rouze,
and Y. Van de Peer

The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate GenesScience November 10, 2000 290:1151-1155

Full Text (PDF)
G. N. Shah,
D. Hewett-Emmett,
J. H. Grubb,
M. C. Migas,
R. E. Fleming,
A. Waheed,
and W. S. Sly

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA March 31, 1998 95:3708-3713

Full Text (PDF)
S. Xie,
J. Green,
J. B. Bixby,
B. Szafranska,
J. C. DeMartini,
S. Hecht,
and R. M. Roberts
All of which coincide with evolutionary theory..

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:27 am

Sigh, this was all from me merely asking (several times) if there were any other objections to Biblicists than their objection to Macro-evolution and "Gay rights", but anyways..... It would be great if I got an actual answer to my original question rather than going into the umpteenth evolution debate.

Wha?.. Who made claim?

You're the one claiming its a proven fact.

We are well beyond Darwin

Not as much as you'd like to think. Are we well beyond Gould too?

It's not biased what-so-ever.. And we do know how.. It's called electromagnetism. And you clearly didn't read the article..

Feel free to quote from the article anything decisive.

BTW micro and macro evolution are the same thing with only the difference of time scales. They are caused by the same mechanisms.. But of course we can't expect you to understand that..

Completely false statement, anyone who says that Micro and Macro are the same but with different scales is discounting all the intricacies involved with radical DNA change and random mutation. Micro is proven and witnessed. "Macro" is not, only in vague interpretations which are in reality Micro like in certain bacteria and Insect species where inter-reproduction is still possible and it's not quite a drastic DNA structural change.

No, because I don't rest my entire argument on a single cherry picked example for the purpose of playing a dishonest GOD of the Gaps game.

The dishonest one is the one who says "Electromagnetism" somehow proves that the Bat got its wings. Again, quote from your articles that actually proves how it happened, the authors of the articles I listed would be thrilled to see this stunning proof.

Major Gaps in evolutionary theory? No... Gaps in having a complete and full picture of every living thing? Sure, there are lots of gaps.. But not in terms of genetics.

Of course they are gaps in terms of genetics, how are they possibly not? We can also look at cases like the Echidna. I picked the Bat Wing as one example because I didn't want to make too much of an issue about Evolution's plausibility, as I've stated many times by now, my original intention was to merely highlight that the ONLY and I repeat ONLY contentions to the Bibliclist seems to be in Macro-evolution-denial and "gay rights". So anyways, those gaps are real, deal with it.

Pretty hard to imagine magic wand doing it.. And btw, foot arches could be a consequence of terrain and being barefoot..

Arched feet and bipedalism is a far more intricate subject than just attributing it to terrain, the processes involved to develop complex muscle and bone systems is a whole another factor, it's as if you dismissed the articles discussing the subject. Perhaps you'd also like to actually quote from your bat wing article how we "know" how it happened from "Electromagnetism".

Dismissing an imaginary entity that magically only makes new species in the bushes right?

No, dismissing the gaps in the "evolutionary" fossil structure. Like bats having wings. Feel free to quote from that article which you claim proves something.

You're avoiding... tsk tsk.. Btw I can.. An example would be a Nine month pregnancy.

Very cute accusing me of avoiding when you changed the subject to evolution of consciousness. So, you gonna post something from that article which you claim proves how the bat got its wings from "Electromagnetism"?

I am? Do tell us how you design and create reality itself so yourself can exist. I don't see how that makes me desperate..

Right, I think you once said something shifting the goalposts, such mastery is demonstrated here.

You do understand that I was once a Pantheist right? Sure, Pantheism is the belief that reality itself and it's rules to which governs everything is GOD.. Do you not require existence to exist? After all, you are begging us to believe your supposed god exists right? .. Which is higher on the totem pole here? Your GOD, or the Pantheist GOD to which your GOD would be slave to require in order to exist?..

I truly fail to understand the cogency and relevance of this, 100 tokens to anyone else who can help make sense of this and how it relates to the subject.

Yep, the Earth is flat.

I suppose the terrain can be said to be "flat" otherwise nothing would be able to walk on the ground. Even on mountains, or even in the Sea, existence itself is "flat" even if its in multiple dimensions. But if you're saying this has to do with "Flat earth" theory, nope.

let's evaluate that..

Panentheism (Latin for All in God) posits the view that there is a God who encompasses the Universe but was not completely identical with that said Universe: in other words, that God encompasses the physical Universe, but also transcends it.

Note I said Semi-Panentheist, there are things which I don't agree completely with but I think it has the general idea.

That's Great.. Pantheism is still higher on the totem pole As it's all inclusive and rules, contains, and governs all there is. It's literally that of everything. .And your argument is closer to Pantheistic Sollipsism where you seem to be trying to Argue that Existence is a Giant brain and that you are nothing but a non-entity.. A figment of it's imagination. Basically, GOD with a multi-personality disorder.

And do explain how you are only "Semi-Panentheism" ? You either adhere to it's basic premise or you don't.

Why would G-d have a multi-personality disorder? Why is my argument Pantheistic Sollipsism? My argument is semi because G-d is still an independent Being who can take form, being separate from the Universe he created, while still filling the whole of the Universe and more with his Spirit, I've been over this, and it has no relevance to the subject. If you want to discuss this, start a new and relevant thread.

Umm nope, your delusion I am being dishonest is rather silly.. But believe it if you like.

100 tokens to anyone who can prove that my accusation of "dishonesty" such as in changing the subject and claiming that we know how the bat wing formed from the articles presented is incorrect.

Ignoring all evidence as conspiracy evidence on Macro-evolution is indeed equal to what flat Earthers do.. So yeah, the Earth is Flat.

If you'd like to believe that, go ahead. I'm saying the "evidence" for Macro-evolution simply isn't strong evidence for the claims being made about it, and the non-Christian dissenting Biologists have reason to say so.

You brought up evolution.... I addressed it.

And what did I initially say about it again?

So you can't explain it.. And don't you think the problem of consciousness can't exist without cause isn't a bigger issue than how a bat's wing forms? This isn't changing a subject, I am demonstrating your GOD of the Gaps game. Except for the fact that my example is a bigger problem than a bats wing... Do tell us, what is more complex... An unconscious rock, or a conscious entity? Which do you think requires more cause? How about empty space vs an conscious entity?.. It's funny because existence doesn't require a conscious entity to exist at all. Conscious entities are actually entirely irrelevant to existence as a whole..

Umm, yes indeed you are changing the subject, and I have no idea how anyone WOULD explain the evolution of consciousness or what it is even. Can you? I asked. 100 tokens to anyone who can explain the relevance of such an objection.

It's not.. it's addressing evolution specifically. This to which you are trying to deny by cherry picking examples that understudied for the purpose of the GOD of the GAPS.. That's called being dishonest. So tell me why evolutionary science produces practical scientific applications to which include many facets that deal with computer engineering and medical research and medicine.. You're the one that want to claim it's all a crock..

So, you gonna quote from that article which you claim PROVES how the Bat got its wings or keep calling me dishonest when asked?

Your problem is that your articles didn't disprove anything, and that scientists have a pretty good idea of how that might have happened in the embryonic stages of the bats development. Hence, they are at least looking for a real answer as to where your stance is equal to:

Did you read them? They demonstrated that they still don't know how it happened. Quote from your own article that you claim proves the bat wings' origin or admit you're dodging.

So is the Earth flat? According to your bible it should be.. Climbing to the top of a Mountain to see the whole world is a pretty difficult thing to do on an Oblate spherical Earth.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/rus ... Earth.html

Someone that believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution after being told they are the same thing with the exception of time scales is just intentional ignorance. Especially when knowing the same mechanisms are at work.. More specifically electromagnetism.. Life and everything around it is electromagnetic phenomenon with the exception of pressure waves and gravity to which can also effect evolutionary processes..

Sorry, but Macro-evolution involves drastically different stuff going on has only been observed when the meaning of the term is stretched. There's a reason there's a "Species problem".

Incorrect. It deals with both macro and micro... And they aren't mixing them, they are governed by exactly the same mechanisms.

When you stretch the term "macro-evolution" into something that is actually micro in action perhaps.

The Earth is flat.

...?

Face Palm! We are well beyond Lamark and Darwin..

.

http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/You_A ... e_999.html

So here is a fun game.. Tell me what the mechanisms are for micro-evolution, and then tell me what the mechanisms are for marco.. Hell, tell me how many micro changes do you allow in your supposed argument? Let me guess, they magically stop so you can hold on to your religious beliefs. I almost wonder if you can tell me the difference between a dog, alligator, or human in this picture:

That's a subject for another thread, but here's a little bit:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... isms.shtml

Incorrect.. Same mechanisms..

http://astrocreepx.tripod.com/pt5.htm

It's almost you completely ignore what the mechanisms are, and what evolution is... All macro evolution is, is lots of micro-evolutionary changes that eventually lead to speciation.

This should really be another thread, and there are many threads on the issue, but the issue is a bit muddy when the term "Macro-evolution" can be used to describe what is ultimately Micro. It has yet to be actually observed in its actual definintion. And considering most mutations are either neutral or deleterious, the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

[

Actually this thread proves it entirely. How many humans were using electronics in the biblical era? How do sand dunes form over time? How do you think Salamanders in California are diverging into different species...

Okay, so I think I asked for a quote to prove it from that thread. The Salamanders can still mate with each other. Please prove otherwise.

But don't worry, the denial button is still available for your pushing..

And yours.

No, it's your dishonesty because you are not educated in biology or evolutionary theory. Much less do so seem to grasp they follow the same mechanisms.

That's your answer?

LMAO!!.. hold on.. wait.. hold on.. you believe in micro-evolution and then you make that statement? Do you even listen to yourself?

I don't understand your objection.

Curious, what makes you think DNA can't change over time? And the material quoted defies your premises as they deal with self-organizing systems , and complexity changes within complex adaptive systems. They deal with changes and feedback that result in increasing complexity and order from simple processes.. A lot of these deal with gene duplication processes, and deal with processes dealing with what's involved with macro evolution. Sure they will include your examples, but also defy your premises. These include the development of self-evolving and learning systems.

To put it simply, most if not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious, and don't result in the drastic changes that would go from fish to monkey. I'd like to see anything that has defied my premise.

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/cdel ... /isaw3.pdf
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... 4698568521
http://static.usenix.org/event/usenix05 ... andani.pdf

So all I see in your argument is the denial that DNA doesn't ever change... And that is a load crap..:

Feel free to quote from those articles something that proves your case. Like with your proof of the Batwing.

The funny part about this is all I need to do is agree that micro evolution drives evolution lol. Lots of micros adding up over time can cause speciation And yes, those systems can demonstrate macro evolutionary changes over many micro changes.. Fun stuff!

Too bad there's no actual proof that these micro changes can result in drastic Structural changes in question, you have to twist "macro" to basically mean what is covered by "Micro" to get what you're going for. Again, I did NOT intend this to become a debate on evolution. Only on the idea that the ONLY, again ONLY objections to Biblicists seems to be about such and "Gay rights".

They shouldn't be up to vote.. If you want to know what it's like to live like that, you should visit Afghanistan, or some place like Sudan and Dafur. That's where that kind of bigotry rains supreme. You basically think we should vote to control other people's personals lives to adhere to your religious bigotry.

Let the reader note, "Gay rights" to marry (and they already have civil unions) are being compared to ethnic cleansing murders in Sudan. Last I checked, nothing in the constitution says anything about voting for civil rights that aren't already outlined.

And yet you feel it should be up to a vote to make them follow your religion.

I believe that separation of Church and State is one thing that cannot be up to vote, but the issue of what the definition of "marriage" is, as long as its covered by the government, is not necessarily a religious issue. Why should it be considered a religious as opposed to just "Social" issue?

Then why are you wanting to put gay marriage up to a vote? Hypocrisy of your own argument?

Because if the government already has a hand in what is and isn't marriage, the people should have a right to decide on its definition.

Marriage is not an institution

.

What is it then?

I fail to find the institution of marriage anywhere. And theocracy by popular vote is exactly why Government needs to step in and keep it secular. Because we all know a democracy can lead to a dictatorship and theocracy without having checks and balances to protect the minority from the majority persecution.

Please explain why a vote on Marriage definition (which has been man and wife for pretty much every culture historically, with no evidence for equivalent "gay marriages" in ANY society, not even Greece) amounts to a religious argument?

Ok, someone should outlaw your right to get married ect. Let's start taking away all your rights... We should begin there first.. right?

What other rights do you think would get a popular vote to be stripped away? I thought Conservatives get accused of this "Slipper slope fearmongering".

Yes, we are all carbon based life forms eating other carbon based life forms.. You're right, we are all cannibalistic by design.

Glad to see you agree there.

I am aware of this..But I suppose we forget you don't believe in evolution or understand why we have mostly herbivore features. But you should ask your GOD why he created cannibalism.

Mostly herbivore features? Look at your teeth. I should ask my god why he created murder and adultery while I'm at it. I already have an idea why.

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/t ... ating.html

That's fine, here's a counter opinion. Or two.

http://www.freewebs.com/petpi/designedtoeatmeat.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128849908

From an "evolutionary" perspective, says that meat eating made humans the brainy beings they are.

being what?

Cannibals.

Welcome to the reality of the natural world.

Just because I believe we're designed for Monogamy (at least women) doesn't mean I think people make insanely and I mean INSANELY stupid and poorly planned, lust-and-social-reasoning-based choices for who to be with.

Yes, because finding a male to mate with and having children is natural.. Marriage is irrelevant to that btw. Penguins don't get married, and nor do they need to. Regardless of seeking to get married, it won't change the fact our species is not monogamous. And yes it is cultural..

How does that go against what I said about women overwhelmingly wanting to marry? It's far from just cultural, whether there's a ceremony and ring involved or not, the concept is the same, women generally want a mate to stay with them longterm. The fact that they often give the milk for free is what makes men so much less likely to buy the cow.

Yes because cause credit cards and jewelery and the natural instinct to have kids... The problem is, marriage more often fails. And you can't just blame that on the male...

I rarely blame it on the male to be honest, I will not hesitate to admit I've developed a bit of experiential misogony over the years in the sense that I think women are more often than not responsible for the messes they get in, I will say that publicly yes. But that's nothing to do with the concept that women are best off with one (male) mate and only one mate.

In general, natural instinct and drive will always win.. religion can't control that.

Depends on how you view that. Like I say, STDs are the punishing goads, along with Unwanted pregnancies, and natural emotional issues too that I haven't even gotten into. It is however, the woman who is responsible for what she gets herself involved with in most cases, especially in free societies. I'm going to stop myself before I go to a tangent on this social issue.

Good luck with that in concerning the real world.

The "real world" before the last century was a bit different. STDs and unwanted pregancies are part of the "Real world". I'm tempted to go off on a misogynistic rant, but I will resist that temptation.

you can call it what you like.., but it's the natural order of things in the real world.

How do STDs fit into that real world? What happened to Single mothers up until very recently, and even then, in non-developed countries. (And even in developed countries to this day). Were we meant to also develop vast Welfare programs?

That was kinda my point.. How common is cannibalism in Boston for example? And what makes you think I made an argument for killing off the old ect? How about this, ask your GOD why he created life to which must murder itself in order to reproduce and survive... Hence, what's the deal with the food chain? It's forced killing..

In my belief, man was given the (kosher) animals to eat. As for societies that eat each other, I have my own beliefs on people's births based on karma, but that's yet another tangent I did not and do not intend to get into.

How many people in America are eating other people atm? agriculture has a lot to do with it.

I'd say social taboo plays a large role. And what do you think will happen when there is no more agriculture? (I.e. post-nuclear war).

On a majority basis it is.. This wasn't making a claim that it doesn't happen anywhere else.. And I do believe I mentioned primitive cultures being applicable to that more so than places like Boston.. But hey, life eats itself.. That which doesn't get eaten or die of other means carries on the torch.

Your point? Are we in disagreement?

Put a bunch of people in a room and starve them and see what happens..It's not a matter of should, it's a matter of that it would likely happen regardless if you think it should or shouldn't.

Isn't that my point?

Apparently some species do benefit.. Maybe you can talk to your GOD about why frogs are eating other frogs ect.. Is that intelligent design?

Why not? There's all kinds of karma even in the animal world, according to my beliefs. (And before we get into it, the idea of Karma and Reincarnation and animal birth is not unheard of or rare in much Jewish mysticism).

Actually I didn't bring up evolution or cannibalism.. you did..

I said that the only two objections to Biblicists were their objection to Macro-evolution (which I merely said wasn't proven true in response to a response, and then I specifically said I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate) and about "gay rights".

No really, stop and look around you because that is the answer..

I see lots of STD afflicted people, many emotionally devestated and desparate women, lots of single parents, and a giant welfare system, and lots of women who hilariously don't understand why men don't want to get married while they give away the goods for free. But I will again refrain from going into a seemingly misogynistic rant.

Most STD don't kill anyone..

They don't. But they definitely cause major problems. Why?

And who said anything about prostitution? And it's not that I would want a woman who's had 100 partners.. Technically I wouldn't really know if they never say anything.. And it's missing the point.. Hence look outside, the human species is not a monogamous species.

I don't think you understood. If women are meant to be polyandrous, why not have them all become prostitutes? Why are we males generally adverse to being with a woman with a major sexual history? In my beliefs, humans are given the choice to be pure or impure, and if they are impure, there are MAJOR problems. In some of the books I consider canonical, it says a loose woman would be better if she was never born. Whether we are geared for it or not, it was only recently, and not even that well, that women could safely have promiscuous relations outside of marriage. Pretty much ALL cultures held such a taboo, even in China and Japan, why would that be? Why would almost (if not) ALL cultures have such a taboo?

Polygamy doesn't require it being all brothers and sisters ect..

That's not what I meant.

I dealt with the concept of more than one husband or wife... Incest however would result in genetic defects, and this was more to the point of why our species is not monogamous.

I wasn't referring to incest. I was asking why multiple fathers for the siblings is any better for "Genetic diversity".

You can get an STD from anyone...

Not anyone. Only those who carry it. And even modern "protection" is not fail-safe.

STD's are not evidence of people supposedly supposed to be monogamous.

Well they're plenty evidence that we aren't just meant to dance la bamba with everyone we want for a start. And 60% of the American population (as a health clinic told me) has one. The rate has never been so high in history.

That's some pretty weak evidence you have there.. Two virgins can give each other STDS btw..Oral sex can spread diseases like herpes and a few others.

Oral cancer and Oral STDs can occur as well indeed. Virgins who perform oral acts I would not even consider fully virgin, but that's another issue. I consider such acts to be sexual acts as well.

Go research Sexually transmitted infections (diseases) and learn how they are spread.

What do you suppose I would learn that I didn't learn in High School?

wrong..

"Nuh uh"?

Why punish? Why not simply fix the problem.. Peguins don't seem to be having this issue very much... Abusive Father figure sounds so rational right?

The issue of the honor of the soul and sexual acts is a subject for another thread.

Sure we do.. It's called lots of micro-evolution governed by electromagnetism. The very same mechanisms that govern the processes from embryo to a new born baby. The baby being the macro-end product.. Your argument is about as bad as someone that might claim that babies can't form in the whom without GOD doing it and putting the puzzle pieces together.

So you gonna quote from that article how we know for a fact that bats got their wings from Electromagnetism?

Incorrect. This tells me you don't comprehend the video or the science what-so-ever.

Feel free to explain why.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

HOW CREATIONISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION:

And the following, provided by JackOL, is the type of argument Creationists use in debates such as these:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... ctive.html

Did you intentionally try to prove my point that your only science objection is about Evolution?

Quote:
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.
This proves my point about the wordplay involving "Evolution", as if none of us believe in Micro-evolution.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.
Yes, we have observed "Evolution", and the wordplay with Micro substituting for Macro is always a good proof of dishonesty on their part.
you can also find recent positive gene mutations in the human species:
Lamarck would be proud.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... eage-12397
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very- ... l-mutation
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40500?page=all
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -evolution
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.0030090
http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/beneficial.mutations
Definitely Lamarck would be proud.

Yes, and gene duplication can occur to, or other means in which new traits and be introduced. You are delusional if you think this only happens in cases of recessive genes turning on or off... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4703000338
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /119.short
Please explain how this isn't what I said about Epigenetics?

Those sighting the above:

Big list of sources
And would I be wrong if I said those are all about Epigenetics?

Abraxas · Post by **Abraxas** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:59 pm

Shermana wrote:Sigh, this was all from me merely asking (several times) if there were any other objections to Biblicists than their objection to Macro-evolution and "Gay rights", but anyways..... It would be great if I got an actual answer to my original question rather than going into the umpteenth evolution debate.

Women's rights were a long running problem with Biblical literalists, holding that the Bible put women in a role inferior to and servile to men. This still exists to some degree.

Further, it encourages a sort of cultural imperialism where missionaries make it their work to attempt to radically undercut the belief system of a society in favor of imposing their own answers upon the recipient of their "wisdom". The practitioners of missionary work are almost invariably fundamentalists.

In addition to denying evolution, as you have so aptly demonstrated here, which holds back biology and medicine, insistence upon things like a global flood holds back geology, a young earth holds back geology and cosmology and particle physics and paleontology and archeology , on the Babel event holds back comparative linguistics, insistence upon things being accurate that are not like Nebuchadnezzar II conquering Egypt undermines history and archeology, etc.

And would I be wrong if I said those are all about Epigenetics?

Yes, because they are about mutation an genetic change too.

You seem to have fallen into the same unfortunate trap delcoder insists on living in, that epigenetics is some new and exciting competitor to evolution. It isn't. Epigenetics has been around for 25 years, it is the study of the different ways genes can be expressed, and it is a key concept within evolutionary theory, not a competitor to it.

Growth to what exactly? What kind of view points do you think it would allow them to change their view to? I don't exactly disagree, since I personally would like to deconstruct "Christianity" back into its Jewish-sect roots and expose all of the false doctrines and interpolations, as well as showing Paul to be a false apostle, but what kind of "Growth" do you think "Liberal" Christianity will encourage among "Christians"? Do you think it will cause more Atheists to become "Christians"? Or is it more about getting "Christians" to agree with the Secularists?

Neither, really. It is about having a flexible mind, one that can accept new information and integrate it and learn from in. That is where you find fascinating fusions of philosophies and religions, one of the more common these days being things like eastern influenced Christianity. Biblical literalism comes off as insular, that is, all important information is in the Bible, therefore, if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't important. This kind of attitude leads to an unfortunate tendency to mentally stagnate.

Can you provide some examples of this so-called "Deeper meaning"? I often see reference to the "deeper meaning", without any actual specifics for some reason. I guess they're just too deep for those who claim such things or something?

Many of the prophecies of, say Ezekiel are treated by Biblical literalists as being factually accurate, even though we know many of them never happened. The deeper meaning is these things were the hopes and dreams of the Jewish people, they longed for someone to come and destroy Egypt, a constant thorn in their side, their long time enemy and oppressor. These things weren't predictions of the future, they were prayers for the future and frequently this is lost in people who want to treat it like a history lesson.

Nothing is really that "clear" in this regard. I can say that the destruction of Jericho "Clearly" coincides with the Biblical time frame, including the way the walls fell, but someone might say that the carbon dating proves otherwise, as if being off by 100 years (according to the one and only set of results) somehow makes it so it "clearly" didn't happen. It's not as cut and dry as the "Liberals" would like to think.

Yes, and Fringe has the terrorists attacking on 9/11 (in our universe), that doesn't make it a documentary. On the other hand, there are things in the Bible that very clearly never happened, like the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon, or his conquest of Tyre for that matter.

And I'd imagine that "Fundamentalists" have a sentiment that nontheists are trying to goad society into a direction which will lead to its ultimate destruction and deteroiration, but that's another story.

I don't see how they could, after all, per the Bible, the future is already set with the Kingdom of Heaven coming to Earth, etc. etc.

What do you mean by "gaining ground"? Are you referring to being dominant at the Seminaries?

No.

California of all places still voted 52% against, and it required Judicial Fiat to go against it. The polls indicating support for it I'd suspect of a bit of bias, and the numbers in various polls vary widely, and I don't think the attitudes are all TOO much different these days, if anything if the numbers are changing I would say its because much of "Christianity" is going against what it directly teaches, as opposed to "conforming to what it originally taught". Thus, as I say, "Liberal Christianity" is more about getting "Christianity" to go against what it originally intended while trying to act like it was always intended that way. But can you name some other examples of this "social progress" that you think Fundamentalists are holding back? Name some, I often notice such arguments go straight to sexual issues and rarely much else.

That means 48% of voters were willing to go out and say they wanted same sex marriage to be legal. Can you imagine those kind of numbers being put up even ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? You honestly don't think the opinions of Christianity, not just in America but word wide, have liberalized on issues like women's rights, gay rights, and so on?

Other social issues would include things like dominion theology, which holds any attempt at environmentalism to be false based on Biblical teachings, contraception is certainly an issue in the news currently, again based on a specific interpretation of the Bible in fundamentalist terms, historically you could place women's rights under this, and to a lesser degree this still holds true, religious tolerance is undermined by a literalist interpretation of the Bible, etc.

Isn't that the question I asked? What type of values does it emphasize that they like which isn't meant to be interpreted in the Fundamentalist form?

Tolerance, respect, compassion, etc.

Would I be wrong to say that the "Source material" never intended such a "liberal" interpretation?

You would be wrong in many cases, yes. Many of the Biblical prophesies were never intended to be a prediction or a literal statement of events, but rather a reflection of the Jewish people and their hopes and dreams. This has become warped over time to be sort of fortune telling based on the expectation it is a literal retelling of events. That was never the intent of the writers.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:18 pm

]Sigh, this was all from me merely asking (several times) if there were any other objections to Biblicists than their objection to Macro-evolution and "Gay rights", but anyways..... It would be great if I got an actual answer to my original question rather than going into the umpteenth evolution debate.

Settle down, it's just debate. And I am sure you were told by people whom know biology and chemistry an umpteenth number of times that micro and macro evolution are pretty much the same thing, and follow the same mechanisms.. In fact, I can use your own argument on micro-evolution in combination of Epigenetics, Energetics, and gene duplication against your position. Also epigenetics is not an argument against macro-evolution. Especially when your entire argument on epigentics ignores this:

Inherited epigenetic effects on phenotypes have been documented in bacteria, protists, fungi, plants, and animals.[52] Though no systematic study of epigenetic inheritance has been conducted (most focus on model organisms)

That's right, if focuses on a very narrow field in biochemistry. But it does state this:

preliminary evidence that this mode of inheritance is more important in plants than in animals.[53] The early differentiation of animal germlines is likely to preclude epigenetic marking occurring later in development, while in plants and fungi somatic cells may be incorporated into the germ line.[54][55]

Life history patterns may also contribute to the occurrence of epigenetic inheritance. Sessile organisms, those with low dispersal capability, and those with simple behavior may benefit most from conveying information to their offspring via epigenetic pathways. Geographic patterns may also emerge, where highly variable and highly conserved environments might host fewer species with important epigenetic inheritance.

And you conveniently leave this out:

The relative importance of genetic and epigenetic inheritance is subject to debate.[33][34] Though hundreds of examples of epigenetic modification of phenotypes have been published,[35] few studies have been conducted outside of the laboratory setting.[36] Therefore, the interactions of genes and epigenes with the environment cannot be inferred despite the central role of environment in natural selection.Experimental methodologies for manipulating epigenetic mechanisms are nascent (e.g.[37]) and will need rigorous demonstration before studies explicitly testing the relative contributions of genotype, environment, and epigenotype are feasible.

And this:

Much of the interpretation of epigenetic fitness effects centers on the hypothesis that epigenes are important contributors to phenotypes, which remains to be resolved.

And it assumes most or all mutations would be deleterious to which is false. Most are neutral but...
Let's address his argument on deleterious mutations as he clearly rides the appeal to the ignorance of the masses, especially when he holds no PHD in Biology. :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 202948.htm

Source: University of Chicago Medical Center
Date: March 5, 2007

Two-step Process Filters Evolution Of Genes Of Human And Chimpanzee

Science Daily Although the human and chimpanzee genomes are distinguished by 35 million differences in individual DNA "letters," only about 50,000 of those differences alter the sequences of proteins. Of those 50,000 differences, an estimated 5,000 may have adaptive consequences in the evolutionary divergence between these two species, according to a study published in the March 6, 2007, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Abstract:

Before such a new and beneficial mutation can take its place in the human genome it has to pass through a rigorous two-step--negative and positive--screening process, say the study authors, evolutionary geneticists from the University of Chicago, the University of Tokyo and the University of Washington. Both steps focus on the most radical changes.

And I posted tons of material on mutations in the other thread. And the argument that beneficial mutations can't occur is utter nonsense:

[youtube][/youtube]

And:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40500?page=all

CCR5"delta32: a very beneficial mutation
creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very-beneficial-mutation
by A Lamb - 2006 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. by Andrew Lamb. Cysteine-cysteine chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is found in the cell membranes

And something you need to know to which people like David and Behee do not tell you, and mostly because they are dishonest and ignorant of science:

CB101: Most mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
Feb 17, 2001 " The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, ... Beneficial mutations are commonly observed.

Abstract:

Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

References:

Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513
Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804.
FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene. Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
Newcomb, R. D. et al. 1997. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosporus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7464-7468.
Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253. See also: Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon, 2000. When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula, 2000. Pseudomonas survival strategies in cystic fibrosis (letter), 2000. Science 289: 391-392.
Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.
Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.
Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.

We can also reference:

The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population.
Gerrish PJ, Lenski RE.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9720276

Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824, USA. pegzcdc.gov
Abstract

In sexual populations, beneficial mutations that occur in different lineages may be recombined into a single lineage. In asexual populations, however, clones that carry such alternative beneficial mutations compete with one another and, thereby, interfere with the expected progression of a given mutation to fixation. From theoretical exploration of such 'clonal interference', we have derived (1) a fixation probability for beneficial mutations, (2) an expected substitution rate, (3) an expected coefficient of selection for realized substitutions, (4) an expected rate of fitness increase, (5) the probability that a beneficial mutation transiently achieves polymorphic frequency (> or = 1%), and (6) the probability that a beneficial mutation transiently achieves majority status. Based on (2) and (3), we were able to estimate the beneficial mutation rate and the distribution of mutational effects from changes in mean fitness in an evolving E. coli population.

Primary literature:

Biological Sciences - Applied Biological Sciences

Sibao Wang,
Tammatha R. OBrien,
Monica Pava-Ripoll,
and Raymond J. St. Leger

Local adaptation of an introduced transgenic insect fungal pathogen due to new beneficial mutations PNAS 2011 108 (51) 20449-20454; published ahead of print December 5, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1113824108
...pathogen due to new beneficial mutations 10.1073/pnas.1113824108...the effects of new mutations from preexisting...variation, and the beneficial mutations are rarely identified...pathogen due to new beneficial mutations. | Genetically modified...

Select this article
Biological Sciences - Evolution

Chris R. Feldman,
Edmund D. Brodie, Jr,
Edmund D. Brodie III,
and Michael E. Pfrender

The evolutionary origins of beneficial alleles during the repeated adaptation of garter snakes to deadly prey PNAS 2009 106 (32) 13415-13420; published ahead of print July 28, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0901224106
...evolutionary origins of beneficial alleles during the...they arise as novel mutations? Here, we examine...novo acquisition of beneficial mutations. The tempo and mode...evolutionary origins of beneficial alleles during the...they arise as novel mutations? Here, we examine...

Biological Sciences - Evolution

Marianne Imhof and
Christian Schltterer

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations PNAS 2001 98 (3) 1113-1117; doi:10.1073/pnas.98.3.1113
...of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia...central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive...66 advantageous mutations have occurred over...generations. The beneficial mutation rate was...of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia...central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive...

Biological Sciences - Genetics

E. Susan Slechta,
Kim L. Bunny,
Elisabeth Kugelberg,
Eric Kofoid,
Dan I. Andersson,
and John R. Roth

Adaptive mutation: General mutagenesis is not a programmed response to stress but results from rare coamplification of dinB with lac PNAS 2003 100 (22) 12847-12852; published ahead of print October 14, 2003, doi:10.1073/pnas.1735464100
...over several days (1, 2). Two models assume that mutations arise in the nongrowing population (3). Directed mutation proposes that stress preferentially induces beneficial (i.e., Lac + ) mutations (1, 2). The hypermutable state proposes that stress...

Sympatric Speciation Driven by Beneficial MutationsProc. R. Soc. Lond. B November 22, 1996 263:1515-1520; doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0221
...research-article Sympatric Speciation Driven by Beneficial Mutations Tadeusz J. Kawecki Published models of sympatric...sympatric speciation. It rests on the assumption that beneficial mutations with habitat-specific effects frequently arise.

Alex R. Hall,
Victoria F. Griffiths,
R. Craig MacLean,
and Nick Colegrave

Mutational neighbourhood and mutation supply rate constrain adaptation in Pseudomonas aeruginosaProc. R. Soc. B February 22, 2010 277:643-650; published online before print November 4, 2009, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1630
...factors that determine which beneficial mutations are available for selection...sequence data to show that the beneficial mutations associated with fitness recovery...access to different sets of beneficial mutations. When we manipulated the...

Group-beneficial traits, frequency-dependent selection and genotypic diversity: an antibiotic resistance paradigmProc. R. Soc. B January 7, 2005 272:79-83; doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2916
...evolution of group-beneficial traits via frequency...these strains is a mutation in the ara operon...evolution of group- beneficial traits may help...that arise via mutation, as well as the...may remain, but a mutation may cause the gene...suggest that group-beneficial traits can act...

Or if you need something easier to understand:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ution.html

Thus as stated before, your main argument is about playing the lottery ticket game with the intention of ignoring the winning lottery tickets. Your assumption of the impossible probability simply collapses under the fact it happens, did happen, still is happening, and will happen.. However, epigenics is not the only pathway in which information is conveyed. Hence, we live in a open energetic system and not a closed system. I'm not even sure you understand what energetics is, but we can explore that here:

Energetics (also called energy economics) is the study of energy under transformation. Because energy flows at all scales, from the quantum level to the biosphere and cosmos, energetics is a very broad discipline, encompassing for example thermodynamics, chemistry, biological energetics, biochemistry and ecological energetics. Where each branch of energetics begins and ends is a topic of constant debate. For example, Lehninger (1973, p. 21) contended that when the science of thermodynamics deals with energy exchanges of all types, it can be called energetics.

For example:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4137041
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/comdesc.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18054.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18054.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18054.full

And a lot of this deals with energetic equivalance in evolutionary processes:

http://nicolas-loeuille.com/ele_861.pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 0ZwmN-ab3A
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... tPXI04TsLg

And you also might want to consider biothermodynamics:

Biological thermodynamics is a phrase that is sometimes used to refer to bioenergetics, the study of energy transformation in the biological sciences. Biological thermodynamics may be defined as the quantitative study of the energy transductions that occur in and between living organisms, structures, and cells and of the nature and function of the chemical processes underlying these transductions. Biological thermodynamics may address the question of whether the benefit associated with any particular phenotypic trait is worth the energy investment it requires.

This to which relates to:

Energetics of evolution

His earlier work was centered on energetics and applications of thermodynamics in life sciences.

Lotka proposed the theory that the Darwinian concept of natural selection could be quantified as a physical law. The law that he proposed was that the selective principle of evolution was one which favoured the maximum useful energy flow transformation. The general systems ecologist Howard T. Odum later applied Lotka's proposal as a central guiding feature of his work in ecosystems ecology. Odum called Lotka's law the maximum power principle.

And:

The maximum power principle has been proposed as the fourth principle of energetics in open system thermodynamics, where an example of an open system is a biological cell. According to Howard T. Odum (H.T.Odum 1995, p.311), "The maximum power principle can be stated: During self organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency."

That's right, we are dealing with open systems and not closed systems... Example:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

What's interesting is that your argument rests on only the second law of thermodynamics to which is a very bad argument when dealing with Electromagnetic phenomenon in an open system. Hence, there is a reason why you sweat and give off heat, and can absorb heat.. It took me a bit to realize what the hell you were doing by posting energetics.. You might want to learn the other laws of thermodynamics, and what electromagnetism is and how it deals with living organisms..

Another major area in which epigenics or your position of mircr-evolution can support deals with horizontal gene transfers.. Yes this is another energetic open system process in which information transfer and exchange can occur:

Horizontal Gene Transfer and Homologous Recombination Drive the Evolution of the Nitrogen-Fixing Symbionts of Medicago Species

Xavier Bailly1,2,*,
Isabelle Olivieri2,
Brigitte Brunel1,
Jean-Claude Cleyet-Marel1, and
Gilles Bna1

--

Curr Biol. 2009 Nov 3;19(20):1683-91. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
Horizontal gene transfer of the secretome drives the evolution of bacterial cooperation and virulence.
Nogueira T, Rankin DJ, Touchon M, Taddei F, Brown SP, Rocha EP.
Source

Institut Pasteur, CNRS, URA, Paris, France.

--

Horizontal Transfer, Not Duplication, Drives the Expansion of Protein Families in Prokaryotes

Todd J. Treangen1,2,3*, Eduardo P. C. Rocha1,2,3

1 Institut Pasteur, Microbial Evolutionary Genomics, Dpartement Gnomes et Gntique, Paris, France, 2 CNRS, URA2171, Paris, France, 3 UPMC Universit Pierre et Marie Curie, Atelier de Bioinformatique, Paris, France

You can also read good source material here:

http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/57962/

Abstract:

Quote:

Gene swap key to evolution
Horizontal gene transfer accounts for the majority of prokaryotic protein evolution

[Published 27th January 2011 10:00 PM GMT]

Microbes evolve predominantly by acquiring genes from other microbes, new research suggests, challenging previous theories that gene duplication is the primary driver of protein evolution in prokaryotes. The finding, published today (January 27) in PLoS Genetics, could change the way scientists study and model biological networks and protein evolution.

Such example other than those above would be the Green Sea slug:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... -sea-slug/

OR:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/367.short

You're the one claiming its a proven fact.

Evolution is a proven fact, and it's rather funny that you have to use it's tenants to try and play a game of the GOD of the Gaps. Do you even understand that Epigenetics can likely cause gene duplication? Why do you think I posted Gene duplication? Here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12911035

Abstract:

Epigenetic silencing may aid evolution by gene duplication.
Rodin SN, Riggs AD.
Source

Theoretical Biology Department, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010-3000, USA. srodincoh.org
Abstract

Gene duplication is commonly regarded as the main evolutionary path toward the gain of a new function. However, even with gene duplication, there is a loss-versus-gain dilemma: most newly born duplicates degrade to pseudogenes, since degenerative mutations are much more frequent than advantageous ones. Thus, something additional seems to be needed to shift the loss versus gain equilibrium toward functional divergence. We suggest that epigenetic silencing of duplicates might play this role in evolution. This study began when we noticed in a previous publication (Lynch M, Conery JS [2000] Science 291:1151-1155) that the frequency of functional young gene duplicates is higher in organisms that have cytosine methylation (H. sapiens, M. musculus, and A. thaliana) than in organisms that do not have methylated genomes (S. cerevisiae, D. melanogaster, and C. elegans). We find that genome data analysis confirms the likelihood of much more efficient functional divergence of gene duplicates in mammals and plants than in yeast, nematode, and fly. We have also extended the classic model of gene duplication, in which newly duplicated genes have exactly the same expression pattern, to the case when they are epigenetically silenced in a tissue- and/or developmental stage-complementary manner. This exposes each of the duplicates to negative selection, thus protecting from "pseudogenization." Our analysis indicates that this kind of silencing (i) enhances evolution of duplicated genes to new functions, particularly in small populations, (ii) is quite consistent with the subfunctionalization model when degenerative but complementary mutations affect different subfunctions of the gene, and (iii) furthermore, may actually cooperate with the DDC (duplication-degeneration-complementation) process.

And:

An epigenetic state associated with areas of gene duplication.
Gimelbrant AA, Chess A.
Source

Center for Human Genetic Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Erratum in

Genome Res. 2006 Aug;16(8):1073.

Abstract:

Asynchronous DNA replication is an epigenetically determined feature found in all cases of monoallelic expression, including genomic imprinting, X-inactivation, and random monoallelic expression of autosomal genes such as immunoglobulins and olfactory receptor genes. Most genes of the latter class were identified in experiments focused on genes functioning in the chemosensory and immune systems. We performed an unbiased survey of asynchronous replication in the mouse genome, excluding known asynchronously replicated genes. Fully 10% (eight of 80) of the genes tested exhibited asynchronous replication. A common feature of the newly identified asynchronously replicated areas is their proximity to areas of tandem gene duplication. Testing of other clustered areas supported the idea that such regions are enriched with asynchronously replicated genes.

Click here to enlarge

And:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 4.abstract

And remember that video on Macroevolution that outlines algae evolving multi-sellular complexity? Well, An obvious difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that the latter involves a change in organismal or epigenetic complexity as roughly defined by the number of cell types or the number of epigenetic molecules. With the Creationist idea of microevolution (yeah their own definition of it), and this being your argument, the algae would stay forever as single cellular, and would never be able to evolve into complex multicellular life. This being one of those tenants you kindly ignored. And what's even more interesting is that you are using Lamarck out of context, especially in modern evolutionary theory. What modern science is finding is that both Darwin's and lamarck's theories are both variable factors in evolution.. It's also why we are well beyond Darwin since natural selection is not the only driving force in evolution.. Especially when we know life is governed by electromagnetism to which deals directly with energetics discussed above.. You can feel free and read these on electromagnetism:

http://www.biotele.com/EL/ELTOC.html
http://n.b5z.net/i/u/12000008/f/MSelect ... ook_1_.pdf

Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electromagnetism is also the force which holds electrons and protons together inside atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons inside and between atoms.

In short, you can't have a living organism without the electromagnetic force to which is one of the prime drivers to self-organizing molecules.

And we can look into Organic compounds vs inorganic compounds:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -life.html

scientists have discovered that simple peptides can organize into bi-layer membranes. The finding suggests a missing link between the pre-biotic Earths chemical inventory and the organizational scaffolding essential to life.

This is a boon to our understanding of large, structural assemblies of molecules, says Emory Chemistry Chair David Lynn, who helped lead the effort, which were collaborations of the departments of chemistry, biology and physics. Weve proved that peptides can organize as bi-layers, and weve generated the first, real-time imaging of the self-assembly process. We can actually watch in real-time as these nano-machines make themselves.

This to which brings us something of practical application:

Organic " Inorganic Nano-Hybrid Materials

Or:

in 1828, a chemist named Friedrich Whler accidently created urea. Urea was a compound that mammals produced to get rid of excess nitrogen. Urea is secreted in their urine. Friedrich created it using inorganic (non-living) salts. Everyone was surprised, but chemists then knew that it was possible to create chemicals found in the body using chemicals from the ground or air (non-living sources). So now organic compounds were not defined as only those compounds from organisms, but compounds based on carbon.

http://www.chemistryland.com/Elementary ... rganic.htm

Also, Epigentetics does not address the fact that DNA duplication from parent to child is never identical. And the ignorance of your micro-evolution creationist belief is the ignoring that these changes do not stop..They add up over time and can cause genetic drift, gene duplication, fusing of chromosomes, or many other things that lead to speciation... This to which we find in California Salamanders... But let's watch some videos:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

Also, you can have Macroevolution without microevolution... As rare as this is, it's happened:

In North America, there are two species of gray tree frog. For all intents and purposes they are identical, and they differ in only two features: their call (necessary to isolate the groups) and their genetic make-up; the species simply referred to as the Gray Tree Frog has four copies of each chromosome, whereas the Cope's Gray Tree Frog has two (like humans). At some point in their history, a single group of larvae was born with four sets of chromosomes...these cannot breed with "normal" tree frogs, and within a two or three generations, there were two species where before there was one. No gradual change in response to the environment, just a sudden reproductive isolation leading (very quickly) to new species.

This is through sexual selection where the selections produce to divergent DNA paths over time to the point where the end species can no longer interbreed.

[youtube][/youtube]

Not as much as you'd like to think. Are we well beyond Gould too?

No, we are way beyond Darwin.. Darwin had little knowledge of what we know to today in terms of evolution.

Feel free to quote from the article anything decisive.

Sure.. :

http://www.ptable.com/

Another example is sexual selection dealing with sensory information to which is electromagnetic information flow that can effect sexual selection. This to which can influence the natural selection process of divergence within a species such as seen in the Gray Tree Frog.. And this is in understanding that DNA duplication from one generation to the next is never identical.

This also touches on environment pressures being similar in electromagnetic pressure driven processes... This is information flow, and information feedback in the system to which can drive selective adaptations, mutations, arches in the feet ect... The hard part is understanding how all the environmental and biological interactions drive evolution in any given species.. Just even the size of the animal can effect the variables of pressures that drive it's evolution.. That's one variable of an unknown number of other environmental variables..

This is what we call a very complex adaptive system environment. Or Information - energy environment where everything is deeply connected in some form or another.. So whenever forces come together in harmony, we can get complexity from force interactions and pressures. This again being a system with feedback.. This can bee seen in that animals well adapted to their environment will evolve more slowly than those whom are under greater pressures. If the an animal species can't adapt fast enough to the changes in the environment, such as the introduction of an invasive species that chokes it off, it will go extinct via natural selection.. So the animals we see today, are the torch carriers of only species that successfully adapted. Those we see dying off are the one's not successfully adapting, or the one's being selected out..

You can see this type of system in Ecology, economics, sociology, cultural behaviors ect ect ect..:

http://greenmuseum.org/content/artist_c ... id-94.html

Evolutionary processes are literally all around you organically and inorganically... We do not live in a static existence.. We live in an existence where we have information flow and complex dynamic interactions with feedback. And this type of system is absolutely necessary for the possibility of a conscious state..
This is exactly what the Abrahamic GOD concept is false.. Consciousness can't exist without cause.

Completely false statement, anyone who says that Micro and Macro are the same but with different scales is discounting all the intricacies involved with radical DNA change and random mutation.

Many micro-evolutionary steps produce that result. Macro-evolution is an emergent property of micro-evolution and all the other things noted above. They are driven by the same mechanisms. Hence, micro-evolution is a driving mechanism for Macroevolution. And what drives mirco will also drive the macro. Hence, this isn't hard to understand:

Micro is proven and witnessed. "Macro" is not

Wrong.. You are just ignoring the examples. Your argument is like saying the macro evolution of sand into sand dunes is impossible.. Or that coastal changes of continents by pounding waves is impossible.. Your argument is suggesting that micro changes never result in macro changes. That is what your argument is, and it's wrong on so many levels that it's not even funny "/... And what's worse is that in biology, especially in multi-trillion cellular organisms such as ourselves, do not evolve at such a pace. However, we are still evolving...slowly...:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5 ... 1a92391b6c
http://www.news.wisc.edu/14548
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 030206.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 073004.php
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 04-02.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/235.full
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162933.htm
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/hu ... -evolution

And we know science will win that debate btw..1,000 - 10,000 years from now we will notice various and very measurable macro changes in our own species. Perhaps even speciation over the next million years or so..

, only in vague interpretations which are in reality Micro like in certain bacteria and Insect species where inter-reproduction is still possible and it's not quite a drastic DNA structural change.

When you actually understand what it is you are talking about, it's not vague at all.. Inter-reproductive changes don't need to be drastic. Evolution doesn't say it will be.. Take DNA inter-reproduction DNA variances of just 1 every 10 generations will result in massive DNA variance over just a few million years. And this ignores that DNA duplication is never Identical from just 1 generation to the next. Micro changes over time will lead to Macroevolution regardless of how fast or slow it might take...

The dishonest one is the one who says "Electromagnetism" somehow proves that the Bat got its wings. Again, quote from your articles that actually proves how it happened, the authors of the articles I listed would be thrilled to see this stunning proof.

It's the only way it can happen... As an example, how do you suppose snowflakes get their shapes?.. If you don't understand how exactly snowflakes formed, did GOD do it?.... Well, snowflakes form via processes involving electromagnetism.. Other forces that contribute are pressure waves, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. These forces require understanding to even have Nuclear power plants, or having an Electron based computer... Here is a good video to get to understand the basics:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

Or we can go here too:

Effects of an extremely low frequency electromagnetic field on the cell division rate and plasma membrane of Paramecium tetraurelia.
Dihel LE, Smith-Sonneborn J, Middaugh CR.
Abstract

The eukaryotic protozoan, Paramecium, was examined as a model for effects of pulsated electromagnetic fields (PEMF) on cells. A 72-Hz PEMF similar to fields employed clinically increased cell division rates in Paramecium by 8.5%. Two calcium transport mutants of these organisms showed differential responses to the same field. Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker, abolished any effect of PEMFs on cell division rates. A fluorescent probe that is thought to sense changes in membrane potential also manifested an altered response in the PEMF-exposed cells whereas a fluorescent lipid bilayer fluidity probe produced evidence of decreased membrane fluidity in the exposed cells. An effect of PEMFs on ion transport mediated by either a direct or indirect effect on the cell membrane is suggested by these studies.

An electrostatic model for biological cell division
Eshel Faraggi
(Submitted on 20 Jun 2010)

Probably the most fundamental processes for biological systems is their ability to create themselves through the use of cell division and cell differentiation. In this work a simple physical model is proposed for biological cell division. The model consists of a positive ionic gradient across the cell membrane, and concentration of charge at the nodes of the spindle and on the chromosomes. A simple calculation, based on Coulomb's Law, shows that under such circumstances a chromosome will tend to break up to its constituent chromatids and that the chromatids will be separated by a distance that is an order of thirty percent of the distance between the spindle nodes. Further repulsion between the nodes will tend to stretch the cell and eventually break the cell membrane between the separated chromatids, leading to cell division. The importance of this work is in continuing the understanding of the electromagnetic basis of cell division and providing it with an analytical model. A central implication of this and other studies is to give theoretical support to the notion that cell division can be manipulated by electromagnetic means. Requirements on the ingredients of more sophisticated models for biological cell division will also discussed.
Keywords: Charge Separation, Cell Division, Mitosis

Comments: 5 pages, 4 figures. Year: 2006
Subjects: Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1006.3961v1 [physics.bio-ph

http://www.biophysicsnet.ro/rjb/articles/204/esaga.pdf

Of course they are gaps in terms of genetics, how are they possibly not? We can also look at cases like the Echidna. I picked the Bat Wing as one example because I didn't want to make too much of an issue about Evolution's plausibility, as I've stated many times by now, my original intention was to merely highlight that the ONLY and I repeat ONLY contentions to the Bibliclist seems to be in Macro-evolution-denial and "gay rights". So anyways, those gaps are real, deal with it.

And yet you ignore proven examples via dishonest means of suggesting they are just micro or epigenetic while having no understanding of either of those terms, or their relationships with macro-evolution. You didn't even bother to, and you took Lamarck out of scientific context to mold it to your religious ideological beliefs of creationism without even understanding what it is you are discussing. I at first thought you might have when responding to my post on applications of complex self-organizing systems that deal with systems with feedback.. Unfortunately that quickly turned south :/

Arched feet and bipedalism is a far more intricate subject than just attributing it to terrain, the processes involved to develop complex muscle and bone systems is a whole another factor, it's as if you dismissed the articles discussing the subject. Perhaps you'd also like to actually quote from your bat wing article how we "know" how it happened from "Electromagnetism".

It's indeed intricate, but so is the world we live in to which deals with such systems with feedback. And if you thin the complexity development of a muscle is tough to grasp here, I hate to see you try and tackle consciousness, or the complexity of cognitive functions and dynamics..

Perhaps you'd also like to actually quote from your bat wing article how we "know" how it happened from "Electromagnetism".

This would require knowing all the environmental variables and condistions to which the process began... Your argument is like asking someone to tell you how exactly in detail did that rock in your backyard get to to be exactly where it is even if you knew that someone told you that they kicked it into your yard.. Well, you can know the cause, but knowing the exact position or order or events to which thus followed to get the rock exactly where it landed to the quantum accuracy. This type of argument is dishonest. Hence, we can simulate or even test how it could have got there, but we can never tell you in infinite exact detail.. This is your appeal to ignorance because you ignore the cause forces such as the kick, or possible environmental variables such as wind, or some bird cross it's path to which deflects it.. You aren't going to get a movie replay.. And you seem to think that is where you get to place magic man done it even though there is zero evidence for it, and that natural processes and forces can account for it.

So I want you to tell me exactly how this particular snowflake formed:

I can tell you the force and physics of how it was formed, but I won't be able to tell you in exacting detail atom by atom.. Especially from a post position of observation regardless of what I know about the mechanisms that form snowflakes.

No, dismissing the gaps in the "evolutionary" fossil structure. Like bats having wings. Feel free to quote from that article which you claim proves something.

Adaptations don't necessarily need show up in the fossil records in transitional forms. And neither is the fossil record ever going to be a complete photo album. It's like me telling you that your parents aren't your parents because you can't show us every instance of your supposed birth, and your growing up in a photo album without any possible gaps. .. So yeah, your supposed parents kidnapped you.. In fact, you were a test tube baby because you can't show us a complete record.. Those photos are like fake too because you would be lying on top of it to fool me.

That's the kind of dishonest logic we are dealing with here.

Very cute accusing me of avoiding when you changed the subject to evolution of consciousness. So, you gonna post something from that article which you claim proves how the bat got its wings from "Electromagnetism"?

Why not.. You are the one in a stance suggesting complexity can't exist without a creator.. So the argument is making a point here about your argument with the Bat Wing.. Please tell us how consciousness formed and by what mechanisms. Tell us how it works and becomes an emergent property. After that, tell us exactly how that then made bat wings and by what mechanisms in exacting detail and chronological order.. Which atoms were place first? You think science has a gap problem? Well, your problem is nothing but a GAP.. Science at least tangible to go on empirically. Science at least has know capable forces to coincide with having the ability to produce complexity from a system with feedback..

So You think the Bat wing issue is a problem?.. And yes, electromagnetism is for the most part the governing force. Life doesn't even require gravity..Put life in zero G and it will still function.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/cre ... les13.html

Why? Because life is an electromagnetic phenomenon and is governed by electrodynamics.

I truly fail to understand the cogency and relevance of this, 100 tokens to anyone else who can help make sense of this and how it relates to the subject.

Cogency and relevance?... Ok, let's simplify in question form:

1) Do you require existence to exist?
2) Do you need to be in existence to exist?
3) Do you need to be of existence to exist?
4) Do you require the capacity to exist in order to exist?
5) How do you create that which yourself is slave to require to exist into existence?
6) Is existence itself not the governor, the capacity, first cause, and value of all that which is existence, in existence, and of existence?
7) How do you exist without existence?
8) Do you deny the existence of existence? This being the Pantheist GOD?

I hope you can answer these questions.. And so you know, my usage of existence is synonymous with the term Reality.

I suppose the terrain can be said to be "flat" otherwise nothing would be able to walk on the ground.

Where did I say it needed to be perfectly flat? I only denoted the Earth wasn't a sphere.

Note I said Semi-Panentheist, there are things which I don't agree completely with but I think it has the general idea.

Which part of that tenant are you and are not.. Are you in GOD's bum? Perhaps our Universe is just a Particle within the Body of a larger organism to which exists in a Universe much larger than our own. Who's to say we aren't the particle physics of it's existence? Or that he and his universe is not the particle Physics of an even larger Universe? Infinite ingress is interesting giving that Capacity and Volume must be infinite since a zero capacity and volume can't exist, or contain an existence. And don't you find it odd that you say we exist in GOD? Pantheism creeping in there.... And where in GOD is GOD's mind in relation to ours? Is this GOD omnipresent? And if he is, where do you and I exist?

Why would G-d have a multi-personality disorder? Why is my argument Pantheistic Sollipsism?

You said everything exists in GOD right? Well, are we in his mind? And if this GOD has no form, body, or composition, how do we exist inside him? And lastly What does your GOD exist in? ..

My argument is semi because G-d is still an independent Being who can take form, being separate from the Universe he created, while still filling the whole of the Universe and more with his Spirit, I've been over this, and it has no relevance to the subject. If you want to discuss this, start a new and relevant thread.

Ok, so you want individualism independent of each other.. But yet you say we exist inside this deity.. And now you say he fills the whole universe with his spirit.. Am I thus GOD if I am his spirit? Am I not in this Universe?

100 tokens to anyone who can prove that my accusation of "dishonesty" such as in changing the subject and claiming that we know how the bat wing formed from the articles presented is incorrect.

I didn't change the subject, I posted what we currently know on that subject and that is all. I still fail to see where your GOD fits into that.... Exchanging a blank for a blank deosn't produce anything other than a blank. However, science actually tries to empirically and tangibly fill in the blanks... Science at least has something on the subject in terms of empirical support and value. This to which includes empirically supported force mechanisms and systems theory applicable to the subject, and applicable to providing practical applications based on those studies and mechanisms..

So how do we apply the bible in terms of gene therapy, or molecular assemblers and DNA nano technology that may one day actually something like cure cancer? You think praying and worshiping another entity is going to cure cancer or perhaps make it possible to grow limbs for amputees?

Umm, yes indeed you are changing the subject, and I have no idea how anyone WOULD explain the evolution of consciousness or what it is even. Can you? I asked. 100 tokens to anyone who can explain the relevance of such an objection.

I don't think Consciousness can solve or represent the origin of complexity giving it's the most complex thing we know of.. So it can't solve the complexity issue or be considered required for the complexity of life, or the mechanism that to which govern life and it's complexity and diversity. Basic life would require less causation than a conscious state.

So, you gonna quote from that article which you claim PROVES how the Bat got its wings or keep calling me dishonest when asked?

You only need watch the embryonic stages to see how it gets it's wings. Electromagnetic phenomenon..

Did you read them? They demonstrated that they still don't know how it happened. Quote from your own article that you claim proves the bat wings' origin or admit you're dodging.

They only said they don't yet know how the mutation happened.. The bats wing forms none the less via discovered and expected mechanisms.. And bat wings origin is the very substance it's made of and force driven processes that made the wings.

And this is even a more informative site:

http://novelty.wikispaces.com/Bat+Wings

Interesting, it's similar in process of how people can get webbed feet and hands..:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/ca ... 055422.pdf

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/rus ... Earth.html

Round Earth propaganda..

When you stretch the term "macro-evolution" into something that is actually micro in action perhaps.

WE HAVE A WINNER! :

I don't understand your objection.

Your argument is a self-refutation

To put it simply, most if not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious, and don't result in the drastic changes that would go from fish to monkey. I'd like to see anything that has defied my premise.

Evolution does not state a fish will turn into a monkey. And if all mutations were deleterious, you wouldn't be here. Your ignorance of what evolution states and evolutionary science is showing... :

you can also find recent positive gene mutations in the human species:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... eage-12397
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very- ... l-mutation
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40500?page=all
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -evolution
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.0030090
http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/beneficial.mutations

Too bad there's no actual proof that these micro changes can result in drastic Structural changes in question, you have to twist "macro" to basically mean what is covered by "Micro" to get what you're going for. Again, I did NOT intend this to become a debate on evolution. Only on the idea that the ONLY, again ONLY objections to Biblicists seems to be about such and "Gay rights".

These video are perfectly applicable to your argument:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

Let the reader note, "Gay rights" to marry (and they already have civil unions) are being compared to ethnic cleansing murders in Sudan. Last I checked, nothing in the constitution says anything about voting for civil rights that aren't already outlined.

Civil Unions do are not given the same rights ect as those who get married.. It's basically a poor attempt to keep them from getting married and to keep them as second class citizens. It's about equal to saying this bathroom is for whites only..

I believe that separation of Church and State is one thing that cannot be up to vote, but the issue of what the definition of "marriage" is, as long as its covered by the government, is not necessarily a religious issue. Why should it be considered a religious as opposed to just "Social" issue?

It's mostly a religious legislation / movement to ban gay marriage. And such trivial social issues need not be up to vote.

Because if the government already has a hand in what is and isn't marriage, the people should have a right to decide on its definition.

That's because marriage isn't just going to a place and putting a ring on the finger to profess your love..Marriage isn't even needed for that. . It deals with legal issues to which is basically a business contract. This deals with peoples assets, money, and estates ect.. Marriage evolved from such a system and it remains largely just that..

What is it then?

I actually went to look up the term because I thought it had to do with just a body of governance, or an organization.. Turns out it's an institution depending on the usage.

I fail to find the institution of marriage anywhere. And theocracy by popular vote is exactly why Government needs to step in and keep it secular. Because we all know a democracy can lead to a dictatorship and theocracy without having checks and balances to protect the minority from the majority persecution.

Please explain why a vote on Marriage definition (which has been man and wife for pretty much every culture historically, with no evidence for equivalent "gay marriages" in ANY society, not even Greece) amounts to a religious argument?

Ok, someone should outlaw your right to get married ect. Let's start taking away all your rights... We should begin there first.. right?

What other rights do you think would get a popular vote to be stripped away? I thought Conservatives get accused of this "Slipper slope fearmongering".

Yes, we are all carbon based life forms eating other carbon based life forms.. You're right, we are all cannibalistic by design.

Glad to see you agree there.

That's fine, here's a counter opinion. Or two.

http://www.freewebs.com/petpi/designedtoeatmeat.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128849908

From an "evolutionary" perspective, says that meat eating made humans the brainy beings they are.

I'm kewl with that..Hunting does require more use of the brain than picking fruit in a tree ect.. Eating meat doesn't make the human species gerneral cannibals... Humans don't inherently eat other humans.. It would be like trying to say a few cases of humans having long happy marriages suddenly makes the human species monogamous.. It's missing the point.. The frog example on the other hand would be..

Just because I believe we're designed for Monogamy (at least women) doesn't mean I think people make insanely and I mean INSANELY stupid and poorly planned, lust-and-social-reasoning-based choices for who to be with.

Seems this design has some major problems.. How was this intelligent design by a supposed omnipotent and omniscient entity? Seems his designs fail at being what they were supposedly designed to do... Blaming people for their design flaws seems a bit mundane.. Do blame the company that made the propane tank that had a fatal design flaw when it blows up and kill someone? Or do blame the propane victims and the propane tank?

How does that go against what I said about women overwhelmingly wanting to marry?

What about the ones that don't? Were they skipped in this design process? How about the majority that get married and then get divorced? And the ability to want things isn't an indicator of design, it's an indicator of the ability to want and desire.

Example:

It can be argued that most people want to be able to do things we can't possibly do. I want to be able to build entire Universes and time machines.

So was I designed to build entire Universes and time machines?

It's far from just cultural, whether there's a ceremony and ring involved or not, the concept is the same, women generally want a mate to stay with them longterm. The fact that they often give the milk for free is what makes men so much less likely to buy the cow.

Are you saying men don't? Your entire argument is kinda sexist if not ignoring the reality of human nature. :/ It's a great that people want a long term relationship, and that might someday become what human nature evolves to.. However, as long as love is a process of conditional attraction to which is hugely deep and complex in it's dynamics and variables, it's going to remains a fact that we are going to remain as not being a monogamous species. Especially when we have a higher cognitive ability in opinion. Trying to cage the animal in you is a futile effort when you are by nature an animal. :/ Trying to tame it is as good as it can get.

I rarely blame it on the male to be honest, I will not hesitate to admit I've developed a bit of experiential misogony over the years in the sense that I think women are more often than not responsible for the messes they get in, I will say that publicly yes. But that's nothing to do with the concept that women are best off with one (male) mate and only one mate.

In short, it's complicated, and that there lies the problem.

Depends on how you view that. Like I say, STDs are the punishing goads, along with Unwanted pregnancies, and natural emotional issues too that I haven't even gotten into. It is however, the woman who is responsible for what she gets herself involved with in most cases, especially in free societies. I'm going to stop myself before I go to a tangent on this social issue.

Saying things like STD's, poisons in the world, diseases, genetic disorders people are born with ect is righteous punishment is just disturbing in so many ways.

The "real world" before the last century was a bit different. STDs and unwanted pregancies are part of the "Real world". I'm tempted to go off on a misogynistic rant, but I will resist that temptation.

STD's have been around since man emerged from the whom of nature. 100 years ago is wasn't any different in this regard of human nature. It's changed in cultural dynamics, beliefs, and social behaviors...But fundamentally at the core they are the same.

How do STDs fit into that real world?

How does world fit into that real world?.. Are you seriously asking a question to which the answer is simply because it does, and can. STD's aren't unique to our species either btw. It happens in all animals, and it's a consequence reproduction regardless. And here is an interesting factoid on some of them:

STDs in animals and humans have a historical relationship. "Two or three of the major STDs have come from animals," says Alonso Aguirre, a veterinarian and vice president for conservation medicine at Wildlife Trust. "We know, for example, that gonorrhea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually, or through accidents dealing with the slaughter and consumption of these animals." The most recent, as well as the deadliest, STD to migrate to humans is HIV, which hunters acquired from the blood of chimpanzees,

It's a consequence of a biological organisms environmental interaction and feedback.. However, some people seem to be immune to some of these diseases:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2389 ... mmune-aids

Maybe your GOD just likes to pick and choose random sexually active people to be immune.. Or maybe it's called evolution and natural immunity.

What happened to Single mothers up until very recently, and even then, in non-developed countries. (And even in developed countries to this day). Were we meant to also develop vast Welfare programs?

My mother mostly raised both me and my sister without my father. My step father later on turned out to be a great man. BTW many Indians had a culture of taking care of their own as a duty of their society. But back then, money wasn't an issue.. This is inherent in the animal kingdom in various degrees. We've seen animals take care of animals that are not of their own species, just as we do so ourselves. I fail to see your point..

In my belief, man was given the (kosher) animals to eat. As for societies that eat each other, I have my own beliefs on people's births based on karma, but that's yet another tangent I did not and do not intend to get into.

Life is given Kosher to kill itself in order to survive and reproduce by nature.. I fail to see the relevance of your argument. And now you are arguing children born in bad situations are of Karma? You have a very sadistic superstition there "/

I'd say social taboo plays a large role. And what do you think will happen when there is no more agriculture? (I.e. post-nuclear war).

It's called relativity, and it's inherent in nature. And if there is no more agriculture, or means to easily obtain food, things like this will likely occur more often. Things aren't so easy outside the cushy comforts of your modern civilization. Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_ ... Flight_571

Would this have happened if there was a Stop N Shop just down by the next r

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:42 pm

BTW.. on the webbed feet and toes section. The PDF file is extensive.. So see page 16..

So telling us we don't have a means to infer on the development of bat wings is about as bad as the argument that we don't have a means to infer the development of webbed toes or possibly better swimmers...

And here is something of interest in dealing with bat evolution:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... g-bat.html

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:14 am

You would be wrong in many cases, yes. Many of the Biblical prophesies were never intended to be a prediction or a literal statement of events, but rather a reflection of the Jewish people and their hopes and dreams. This has become warped over time to be sort of fortune telling based on the expectation it is a literal retelling of events. That was never the intent of the writers.

Abraxas, Please back your above claim with evidence that we know that they were never intended to be read literally.

Jackelantern, I'll deal with you later, that post will require hours to respond to in detail,

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:02 am

Jackelantern, I'll deal with you later, that post will require hours to respond to in detail,

Feel free to take your time.. And I would suggest getting a full understanding of what Epigenetics and micro-evolution is within it's proper scientific context before responding. And I will expect you to provide a better answer than "it's micro-evolution, or Epigenetics"... Because from what I can tell, giving by your responses, you seem to know very little about the subjects.

And in regards to bat evolution, we may not know the full story.. That premise has already been established. The problem is that you don't seem to grasp what evolution states or is. But you did have a moment where I think you may have had a Freudian slip, or a moment of realization:

When you stretch the term "[strike]macro[/strike]micro-evolution" into something that is actually [strike]micro[/strike] macro in action perhaps.

You just have it little backwards.. so I fixed it

Also a correction error to where I copied my own post from another thread:

And it assumes most or all mutations would be deleterious to which is false. Most are neutral but...Let's address his argument on deleterious mutations as he clearly rides the appeal to the ignorance of the masses, especially when he holds no PHD in Biology. :

This is from a response about Behe, a creationist. It's not directed at you or Lamarck.. It's an address about deleterious mutations to which creationism must assume all mutation are deleterious... In fact, mutations would have to not exist at all for Creationist views to even be considered. So just keep that in mind.

It took me a bit to realize what the hell you were doing by posting [strike]energetics[/strike] epigenetics.

Sorry, for some reason I typed energetics there.. :/ Cheers!

Debating Christianity and Religion

Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

Re: Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

Re: Is 'certainty' required of Christians?