Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Student]

.

Try as I might I have been unable to locate the publication in which Francis Crick supposedly debunks Darwinian evolution in 1958, or any year for that matter. Would you oblige by providing your reference?

My error, it was 1953, but you can find it in Wikipedia...

• Francis Harry Compton Crick, OM, FRS (8 June 1916 " 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 with James Watson. He, Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".

I did not ask for a link to an article on Francis Crick on Wikipedia. I asked you for your reference to the article where Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

To make my request absolutely clear, where is the publication, irrespective of year, where Francis Crick claims to have debunked Darwinian Evolution?

Darwin based his evolution on the idea that information was passed in an analog form, and under this premise evolution may have been plausible. But, when it was discovered that information is stored digitally, in DNA, his theory became unworkable and needed to be scraped. Darwin still has a following for religious reasons but not for scientific reasons.

I enjoy a joke as much as the next man but forum rules prohibit an adequate response to these comments. Just let me say that they are sufficient to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about the meaning of analogue, digital, or for that matter, evolution, or DNA.

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post 2766--rather than your own absurd statement that the difference between science and superstition is 'fictitious?'

I have been warned for misstating Danmark's position on this thread earlier. Where did I say the above, and if I did not then please withdraw it or have dianaiad check where I said anything that remotely corresponds to the above. You are making the rules on this thread and as I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for the other team to score.

Here is the quote from you:
I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence. There is nothing between the two sides that does not point towards co-operation rather than confrontation. There is a lot of posturing about.

What are these "two metaphysical approaches" you contend have a "fictitious division between" them? It is my contention that one is science and the other superstition, or religion, or other faith based systems that rely on something other than empiricism. I contend there is a large gulf between the two. You claimed this assertion was 'incoherent.' You have yet to explain how you came to that conclusion. You are free to put your own label on the alternative to science that you claim is so much like it.

[Danmark]

.

Try as I might I have been unable to locate the publication in which Francis Crick supposedly debunks Darwinian evolution in 1958, or any year for that matter. Would you oblige by providing your reference?

My error, it was 1953, but you can find it in Wikipedia...

• Francis Harry Compton Crick, OM, FRS (8 June 1916 " 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 with James Watson. He, Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".

I did not ask for a link to an article on Francis Crick on Wikipedia. I asked you for your reference to the article where Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

To make my request absolutely clear, where is the publication, irrespective of year, where Francis Crick claims to have debunked Darwinian Evolution?

Darwin based his evolution on the idea that information was passed in an analog form, and under this premise evolution may have been plausible. But, when it was discovered that information is stored digitally, in DNA, his theory became unworkable and needed to be scraped. Darwin still has a following for religious reasons but not for scientific reasons.

I enjoy a joke as much as the next man but forum rules prohibit an adequate response to these comments. Just let me say that they are sufficient to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about the meaning of analogue, digital, or for that matter, evolution, or DNA.

Well said. I too am interested in the source of my friend Olavisjo's comment. I have seen this sort of thing on several pseudo science creationist sites. They usually simply make this assertion and do not support it.

There is an excellent history of the issue from Darwin and his guesses as to the mechanism, thru Mendel and finally the unlocking of the DNA secret by Watson and Crick at http://www.genetics.org/content/183/3/757.full

Caution: This site actually explains the history of the issue and describes the various theories. It does not give an oversimplified explanation that appeals to the pseudo scientist.

For example:
Darwin failed to understand the significance of these results because he had no model of particulate inheritance that could be applied to genetic data. Indeed, Darwin appears to have maintained a belief in the predominance of blending inheritance, as did nearly all of his contemporaries. As Fisher pointed out in chapter 1 of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (FISHER 1930), there are few explicit statements on this in Darwin's published works, although they appear in some of his unpublished notes and essays. In addition, chapter 15 of Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (DARWIN 1868) starts with a section On Crossing as a Cause of Uniformity of Character, which implicitly assumes that crossing leads to blending. It is unclear, however, to what extent he thought that an offspring was a product of the complete fusion of the genetic contributions of its parents (BULMER 2003, chap. 4).

_________________________
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
__ Alexander Pope

[zeromeansnothing]

This

re Danmark Post 2766--rather than your own absurd statement that the difference between science and superstition is 'fictitious?'

does not mean this

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence. There is nothing between the two sides that does not point towards co-operation rather than confrontation. There is a lot of posturing about.

How can a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches become a statement, attributed to me that the difference between science and superstition is fictitious.
You introduced the word superstition and then misstated me and now you will retract what you said and stop this nonsense.

[Danmark]

This

re Danmark Post 2766--rather than your own absurd statement that the difference between science and superstition is 'fictitious?'

does not mean this

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence. There is nothing between the two sides that does not point towards co-operation rather than confrontation. There is a lot of posturing about.

How can a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches become a statement, attributed to me that the difference between science and superstition is fictitious.
You introduced the word superstition and then misstated me and now you will retract what you said and stop this nonsense.

And I have asked you to explain what the alternate to science is. You refuse to do so. You quoted me for the science part. You quoted a religious statement from Dianaiad for the other. I contend the religious is the same as the superstitious. I have invited you to put your own label on your 'other metaphysics.' You have declined. I have given your quote and my exposition on it. I have made no false attribution. You CLAIM there is a 'fictitious' divide' which is a non sequitur since you refuse to divine the two. Please tell us what you had in mind with your vague statement about the two 'metaphysics' you claim are similar.

[olavisjo]

.

I did not ask for a link to an article on Francis Crick on Wikipedia. I asked you for your reference to the article where Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

To make my request absolutely clear, where is the publication, irrespective of year, where Francis Crick claims to have debunked Darwinian Evolution?

What publication are you talking about? Have you not heard about the discovery of DNA?

[Danmark]

.

In Cricks view, Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendels genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.

Charles Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection has NOT been demonstrated. If you know of any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it.

It is certainly true that Darwin did not understand the exact mechanism that resulted in the variation of the species. We owe a debt to Crick and Watson and others for that. The DNA/RNA mechanism validated the theory of evolution, no matter how many crank creation sites would have it otherwise. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, the central modus operandi of the pseudo scientist. The silliest thing those sorts do, knowing they are beaten, is their concession to what they call 'microevolution.' They could scarcely do otherwise. Then they try to show that what they call 'macro' evolution is not established. The difference is simply one of scale.
Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

If this were true, we could take a large computer and fill it with quine programs and randomly mutate the reproduction of these quine programs. Eventually this computer should produce new and even intelligent programs. And if that happens then we can say that the Theory of Intelligent Design has been falsified and Darwinism upheld.

I confess I don't have the slightest clue what your basis for your statement on quine computing is. Perhaps you could demonstrate why your proposition is true. For the benefit of others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) I'll point out not for the first time, that an analogy is not proof; it is not even evidence. Analogies only serve to illustrate.

I think that if you read the entire article at http://www.genetics.org/content/183/3/757.full you would have a better understanding of the process.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Posst2778--I contend the religious is the same as the superstitious.


This may well be your position but it is not mine and I do not want to be associated with this outlook. You have misstated my efforts at debate here and now you will make a retraction or an apology as I did to you when I wrongly accused you of stating that there was absolute certainty of abiogenesis in the universe when what you actually said was that it was highly likely. Are the rules on misstating a persons position contingent on the amount of time they have been on this forum?

[Danmark]

re Danmark Posst2778--I contend the religious is the same as the superstitious.


This may well be your position but it is not mine and I do not want to be associated with this outlook. You have misstated my efforts at debate here and now you will make a retraction or an apology as I did to you when I wrongly accused you of stating that there was absolute certainty of abiogenesis in the universe when what you actually said was that it was highly likely. Are the rules on misstating a persons position contingent on the amount of time they have been on this forum?

You're simply wrong on all counts. In response to your request I quoted you exactly, explaining what I wrote was a surmise based on what you wrote. I stand by that and repeat for the 3d time that you could clear this up if you explained your initial claim about "two metaphysics.' Instead you seem to prefer making personal charges and disputing the fairness of rule enforcement instead of sticking to the subject of debate.

[Student]

.

I did not ask for a link to an article on Francis Crick on Wikipedia. I asked you for your reference to the article where Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

To make my request absolutely clear, where is the publication, irrespective of year, where Francis Crick claims to have debunked Darwinian Evolution?

What publication are you talking about? Have you not heard about the discovery of DNA?

How short is your memory, or is it simply selective amnesia? I was asking about the publication, in which, you claimed, Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

Cricks paper regarding the structure of DNA, published in 1953, does not appear to mention debunking Darwin. Do you have some other publication in mind or are you simply making it up?