|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
    |
|
| Quote: | It is not worth wasting one's time with people who are making unfounded false accusations against those who they consider to be fanatic, due to their refusal to respond to reason and sound judgement, and their lack of faith. They would rather become a sort of devil's advocate, cursing, accusing, lying, distorting, attempting to undermine sound reason and logic with irrational behavior that will not get them anywhere. It is clear around here
When people can no longer respond to sound reason and judgement, but rather attempt to align the issues to political or religious battles, the effort becomes future to pursue discussion. I have demonstrated a willingness to accept any scientific discussion related to the evidence I have provided. But certainly there is not space for ridiculing others, accusations and the type. This is a clear violation of etiquette, to attempt to tarnish and denigrade others, to classify all who have particular beliefs as falling into the same group of what they consider radical left or right. I am not here for a political discussion to support the Bush camp or any other camp for that matter. I am only calling for an equal distribution of justice in the fairness of the analysis of the data. It is easy to attempt to discredit all the same by attributing this to some radical poliltical camp, as some have attempted to do. The same when there is generalization and when categorical statments are being made, classifying all people into a false statement that is illogical. It is easy for others to come and refuse to use reason and logic and rather appeal to emotion, to a sense of self-defense in others, and of what they believe is the correct political view. This clearly demonstrates lack of objectivity and is not a scientific discussion on any grounds, but one of emotinal appeal, in desperate attempts to ridicule the opponent at any cost, thus attempting to classifiy them into particular extreme camps.
For this reason, as stated, this discussion is not fruitful and productive when it becomes a matter of personal attack, categorical statements, false accusations,
My interest is to point out the errors and fallacies of modern science, as I have done. If some cannot stand to have all their false values and beliefs challenged, and feel they must resort to such aggressive tactics, that is not an attitude that will lead to any interesting discussion. All one has to do is use some basic sense, analyze the data presented, and one will quickly realize that general evolution has no reasonable explanation for the origin of life, and complicates things to such a degree that nobody can get to the root of the issue - how did life actually begin? How did the information codify itself into genes ? How was the first cell created? How did the original codifying of the genes occur ? How were the extremely complex genetic codes created simply by chance? One will clearly realize evolution has no clear answer, but rather is proposing some type of spontaneous design in the complex arrangements of the genetic code, which is preposterous to believe and defies all logic.
As I have clearly stated before:
""just as at one time it was important for society to enforce a separation between church and state, so now it is important that society should enforce a separation between science and state;""
We cannot accept a State that tells us what to believe and forces our children to accept views of science that support anti-religious views, promotes persecution and hatred of religious groups, and politically aligns itself to support science out of prejudice, when science clearly cannot have all the answers, nor can one particular line of science, modern day generation definitions of evolution, be determined by some higher authority to be the ultimate truth. It has no right to dictate to our children what they should believe, as it is doing. Our children are being spoon fed and told what to believe, and alternate views of science which actually have an equal amount of evidence, and in fact more evidence to support them as fact, are barred from presenting their scientific proof in classrooms, to demonstrate the fallacies of modern definitions of evolution.
People are being presented with such an overwhelming amount of information now days, that the line between the truth and lies becomes blurred and subject to corruption of the data, and loss of objectivity. |
I think it was well stated there in these words. If they wish to attack the credentials of others that is their problem. As demonstrated, with a short half life, one can only begin to look into the data and point out only a few good points, and mistakes some of these people are committing. They can't help themselves it seems, they must come back to this post, looking for someone to accuse. Or create their own topics on science then and go on to defend their crazy ideas.  I guess they are having fun talking to themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but rather is proposing some type of spontaneous design in the complex arrangements of the genetic code, which is preposterous to believe and defies all logic. |
Who codified God?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VoiceOFreedom
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I noticed, reading back, that you accept the notion of an infinite space, but not an infinite god... interesting what type of theories you choose to believe and dis-regard. And your topic on astro-physics is most amusing. What type of science is that based on ? Are you an astro-physicist ? In any event, from the quote posted, one can see such discussions can go on for an infinity. But nice to see at least some are doing some thinking.... take care ya... this half life is about to expire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 848
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do men have tits???
Those multiple personalities never answer the good questions.  Which one laughing is the real me?
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
you keep saying life is to complex to emerge instantaneously but then you say that life (God) emerged instantaneously.
Do you not see how that makes no sense?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
lying hypocrisies
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 848
Location: Montana, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it is child abuse plain and simple to lie to children
leave them with a open mind questioning
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 848
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that was well said.
Although I have enjoyed playing the role of the tooth fairly recently, and feel no guilt, in fact it makes me feel kinda cool, like acting. I try my best to act like a good role model.
Unlearning is a powerful tool.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 648
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the school system seems to have more control or influence over children than their own parents at times
all the more reason to keep creationism out
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archi_Motion
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Archaeological Cover-ups
A Plot to Control History?
The s cientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.
From the Internet, by Will Hart © 2002
"The B rain Police" And "The Big L ie"
Any time you allege a c onspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical about co nspiracies--unless the M afia or some M uslim r adicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.
The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.
The bad news: the c onspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements....
But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point. )
This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.
Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process....
Censorship of "F orbidden" Thinking: Evidence for Mankind's Great Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the s cientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and g o vernment. His book F orbidden A rcheology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious O rigins of Man, which featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the s c ientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate s c ientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program "a hoax".
But the sc ientists went further than this--a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the f ederal g o vernment and requested the F e deral C ommunications C ommission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of f ree s peech and a b latant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor i ntellectual discourse. If the public or any g overnment agency made an attempt to handcuff the s cientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
"At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established."
I think we have some good leads on who "the B rain P olice" are. And I really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day. ... |
| Quote: | This m aterialistic worldview has gained widespread acceptance not so much due to its s c ientific validation as due to its vigorous propagation. Moreover the impressive technological accomplishments of s c ience – catering to the mass demands for instant relief and pleasure – have created among people a naïve, unquestioning faith that whatever s cience says must be true. But as the harmful effects of technology are being increasingly recognized, so also are the fallacies of the s cientific worldview that underlies these technologies.
More and more people – including acclaimed s cientists – are realizing that thinkers reductionistic theories overlook a cardinal principle of s cience: theories should be based on objective evidences, no matter how unexpected, and not subjective beliefs, no matter how popular. The evidence uncovered by s cience – both at the macroscopic and the microscopic level – portrays a picture of the universe that is strikingly different from what most of us have been taught to believe as science. |
| Quote: | From the evidence we have gathered, we conclude, sometimes in language devoid of ritual tentativeness, that the now-dominant assumptions about human origins are in need of drastic revision. We also find that a process of knowledge filtration has left current workers with a radically incomplete collection of facts.
This differential application of standards for the acceptance and rejection of evidence constitutes a knowledge filter that obscures the real picture of human origins and antiquity.... we look closely at the vast amount of controversial evidence that contradicts current ideas about human e volution.
We recount in detail how this evidence has been systematically su ppressed, ignored, or forgotten, even though it is qualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to evidence favoring currently accepted views on human o rigins. When we speak of s u ppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientific c onspirators carrying out a s atanic plot to deceive the public. Instead, we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial cumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear from view.
This differential application of standards for the acceptance and rejection of evidence constitutes a knowledge filter that obscures the real picture of human origins and antiquity..... |
There is a need to save future generations from these events unfolding where science has brought us a separation from science. In it's selective adaptations to the new scientific evidence, it has has undergone random selection, random mutations and evolved into a system of mass persecution of any scientific ideas which do not fit into it's pre-conceived views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 848
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Archi_Motion wrote: |
A Plot to Control History?
There is a need to save future generations from these events unfolding where science has brought us a separation from science. In it's selective adaptations to the new scientific evidence, it has has undergone random selection, random mutations and evolved into a system of mass persecution of any scientific ideas which do not fit into it's pre-conceived views. |
I see you saved yourself in a new guise. Your number one is you. I don't appreciate your sense of "saving". You have no evidence, and all your views are pre-conceived lies. The plot is yours.
Long live questions???
Why do men have tits?
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1110
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Archimotion has risen again! Maybe he was deleted to save us all!!
Or maybe not  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A.rch.M.oti.on
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
D-e-volution
D-e-volution is backward e`volution. It states that a species, rather then e`volving, proceeds to more "primitive" forms, as genetic information e`volves in it's quality towards adaptation, leaving the species however more vulnerable in other g`eneric traits when natural conditions abruptly change. From a s`cientific perspective, d evolution does exist and occurs with as much frequency as notions of evolution. Some people may see e volution as progress and that it is directional, but it is not. E volution only occurs in the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation but does not imply a direction of organization. D-e-volution suggests both directions of organization can occur.
Misconceptions about e volution:
* S-pecies evolve in adapting to environmental changes.
This misconception is know as t-ele-ology. Is assumes n-ature will always behave in the same way, and events will naturally tend to occur in a way to pursue their own positive social behavior, positive good, as seen in the "B-ig B-urp" mis-conceptions being spread by some modern s-cientists on popular s-cience web pages, spreading the f-alse belief that n-atural lif-eless systems can somehow s-pontaneously become "social", develop a mass culture and experiment with the best "social behavior" that works for them. No such thing exists. Such s cientists are mixing a hodge podge of social theories and anthropology with pure e volution, creating a mumbo-jumbo of intellectualism that has nothing to do with s-cience.
The B-ig B-urp produced cells?
http://www.scientificblogging.com/howard_bloom/the_big_burp_and_the_evolution_of_elements
| Quote: | Slip the powdered bits of the Murchison meteorite into water, and the social gathering of simple biomolecules begins. Your water is rapidly filled with tiny bubbles, sacks of water surrounded by a 360-degree mesh, water balloons held together by the waterproof envelope of an interwoven(72) molecular mega-community.(73) We call that self-woven bag—that microscopic capsule of molecular fabric— a “membrane”. And membranes—"bio-envelopes"—produced protective "play-pens" for more molecular socializing. Far, far more.
This is all non-sense.
A mere 9.9 billion years after the B ig B ang, the m-olecular "sociality" of the "B ig B urp" took advantage of "m-embranes" and went whole hog into "m-oleculologenic overdrive", spitting out molecules that were enormous—chain-ganging as many as 62 million atoms into a single mo lecular s trand.(74)
This suggests a uto-d esign, auto-o rganization of systems, quite a nti-s cientific and i llogical.
Supe rsynchrony and "manic mass production" also went into overdrive, apparently producing the same massive a-tomic communities—the same mega-mo-lecules—all over this planet’s face. And those massive a-tom-teams soon formed their own social alliances…alliances driven by something very new, culture. Culture began when these mega-teams of atoms developed internal memory,(75) braided new strategies into their molecular strands, kept the strategies that worked, reproduced them in multitudes, and discarded or packed away in the cold storage of “junk D N A” the strategies that failed.
This is man ic belief coupled with manic statements based on circular reasoning and f alse a-ssumptions of a-uto- d-esign.
It sometimes took storing five failed strategies to construct the mega-strategy from which a new breakthrough would be made.(76)
Innate non-living chemicals do not derive a strategy without some type of in-te-lligence guiding it.
These huge new atom communities were R N A and D N A. R N A and D N A were "social" as could be. They used membranes as fortifications, no-go zones, corrals within which R N A, D N A, and their membrane-weaving partners could maintain a specialized mini-sea, a Jell-O or Gatorade rich in vi tamins, or ganic m olecules, e nzymes,(77) s ugars, c arbohydrates, f atty a cids,(7 and p roteins.(79)
For g enetic code to be social, it must be developed from a social in-t-ell-igence.
The B ig Bu rp had produced c ells. |
Somehow these wild s-cientists not only mix anthro-pology and social behavior of living groups animals with the behavior of innate materials, but they also have no explanation for how such "membranes" could suddenly produce the first c ell, simply by repetitive c arbon structures supposedly being carried on a m-eteor, the railway of information supposedly stored in the c arbon cycles. They have no explanation for this supposed "mole cular overdrive", mere spe-culation. Their chain gaining bang g anging suppositions have no logical explanation and assume auto-or-ganization and auto-design of m-olecular structures from car-bon chains. They cannot even repeat this in a lab oratory in s pace, where there is no pre-existing m-olecular l ife. It simply doesn't h-appen not even in t-rillion years. It is all s peculation. Notice how they say "apparently producing" massive atomic communities, mega-molecules - a bunch of ho-g---w-ash, a fruit salad of ideas with no relationship, mixed together to sound plausible. They have no exact explanation how this could occur, how the D N A could "design i-tself" and how a hi-gher level of o-rganization could be achieved from a l-ower level. This de-fies the l-aw of e-nthropy. Things go to hig-her d-esorganization, it is not the other way around. It suggests some type of group thinking on the part of the a-toms, which is pre- posterous. In-nate c-hemical structures can neither have a strategy nor a culture of their own, unless this is designed into them by an in-teligence. If we look at this as a means to explain how an in-telligent being produced life, it could start to make sense, if it was controlled by this in-telligence, allowing the cultures to develop in a guided e-xperiment. Then the jump is made m-agically to R N A, D N A, the extremely complex pr-ogramming needed could just, by some spon-taneous ma-gical "cultural process", appear on it's own. Can a M-icrosoft W-indows c-ode spontaneously appear on it's own, without some programmer to c-reate it and fix the bugs? Obviously not. But if an i-nte-lligent b-eing was fixing the "bugs in the system", then it makes sense.
Such mis-conception of te-leology is being spread by these self-p roclaimed p-seudo - s-cientists.
The fossil r-ecord demonstrates that more than ninety nine percent of all sp-ecies that ever lived are now e-xtinct. It is c-lear that most s-pecies do not e-volve despite radical environmental changes. From a bi-ological viewpoint, when s-pecies e-volve it is not a reaction to necessity, but rather that the population contains variations with t-raits that fa-vor their na-tural s election.
Another mis-c onception of e volution:
* E volution suggests progress to more advanced o rganisms.
This assumes that somehow there exists a preferred hierarchy of structure and function. For example that "feet are better than h ooves" or "l ungs are better than g ills".
If e volution suggests progress, then d evolution suggests the opposite. And if e volution does not suggest progress, then simply systems cannot go from a lower l evel of c omplexity to a higher all on their o wn. It defies rea-son. You cannot have one without the other. To bio-logists this is an characteristic of te -eology, the pre-c onceived ideas that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. A biologist sees all such changes as "e volution", since for the organisms possessing the changed structures, each is a useful adaptation to their circumstances. For example, h-ooves have advantages for running quickly on plains as hor-ses do, and feet have advantages in clim-bing t-rees as the an-cestors of hu-mans did. So a-daptations to the environment yes, but to progress to more ad-vanced or ganisms, NO!
Another mis-conception of e-volu-tion:
* Hu-mans are the ultimate product or goal of e vo-lution.
This is the same as mixing s-cien-ce with an-thropo-logy, as is being done by many modern s-cie-ntists, in a des-perate at-tempt to s-ave and explain ev olution, and their B-ig Bu-rp ideas.
Anth-ropocentrism is the idea that h-uman existence is the ultimate goal of all u-niversal e-xistence, and is a variation on the idea of "p-rogress". To a b-iologist, describing the b-iological e-vo-lutionary process as goal-oriented, developed by some social group, which creates it's own strategy, would seem as ludicrous as a p-hys-icist claiming that the ultimate goal of the u-ni-verse is to keep the Earth in its present orbit.
Further mis-conceptions of e-vol-ution:
* In-creasing c-omplexity is the necessary outcome of e vo-lution.
B-iolo-gists who study the e volut-ion of com-plexity find evidence of many examples of d-ecreasing com-plexity in the re-cord of e-vol-ution. The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a de-crease in com-plexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern h-orses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hoofed toe. Modern h-umans may be ev olv-ing towards never having wisdom t-eeth, and already have lost the tail found in many other m-ammals - not to mention other ves-tigial structures, such as the ver-miform ap-pen-dix or the nic-titating m-embrane.
D-evo-lution occurs in nature as much as e volut-ion does.
B-iol-ogy as other realms of modern sc ience is based on a metho dological criterias which assume a philo-sophical natu-ralism in order to study and explain the na-tural world. It does not take into account the possibility of the su-per-na tural. In telli-g-ent de-sign on the other hand, is just as much sci e-nce and demonstrates through te-le-olo-gy how the guided in telli-gence is behind the processes of nature. Many definitions of ev-olut-ion thus exist, and many s-cie-ntists on sc-ience pages are sprea-ding concepts which con tradict natural te-leo logy. There is no need to re-de fine evo-lutio-n, it is that it is being in correctly applied and inter-preted by modern s- ien tists as well.
Mastro-paulo, believed that "change over time, 'definition one' of e-vo-lution, actually describes de-volution to e-xtinct-ion, the exact opposite of e vo-lution.... actual e-pidemi-ological data from h-uman g-enetic dis-orders and fa-tal b-irth defects, identify 'n-atural s-election,' the alleged 'primary m-echanism' for ev olu-tion, as actually a m-echanism for d-evo-lution to e-xtin-ction, the exact opposite of e volu-tion." "Ev olu-tion is the development of an organism from its chemicals or p-rimitive state to its p-resent state. D-e-v-olution is the sequence toward g-reater s-implicity or dis appearance or de-generation."
The E vol ution of E vol ution
Some consider D-e-v-ol-ution to be "stre-amlining e -vo-lution" and that it is not a natural process. In this they error. It can be demonstrated countless times in n-ature and occurs with much frequency. It is a parallel process with "e v-olution", provided one correctly defines both terms. They are thus c-oncurrent processes and complement each other. In strea-mlining e-v-ol-ution, the development and maintenance of a feature such as an o-rgan or a meta-bolite has an "opportunity cost". Changes in the e-nvironment that reduce the u-tility of an a-daptation may mean that a higher e-vo-luti-onary or dev-o-luti-onary fit-ness is achieved by no longer using the a-daptation, thus better using resources. This requires a mu-tation that i-nactivates one or more g-enes, perhaps by a change to D N A methy-lation or a methi-onine co-don. Stream -ining evo-l-ution allows e-vo-lution to remove features no longer of much/any use, like scaffolding on a completed bridge.
D-e-v-ol-utio-n, on the other hand, typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing, bringing also thus more adapted solutions. Neither D-e-vol-u-tion nor e-v-ol-u-tion is superior or inferior, it just depends on the adaptation. For instance, of the several hundred known species of animal that live their entire lives in total darkness, most have non-functional eyes rather than no eyes. This is due, for instance, to deterioration of the op-tic nerve. It occurs because m-ut-ations that prevent e-ye formation have low p-robability. However, several eye-less a-nimal s-peci-es, such as the K-auai ca-ve w-olf s-pider, who live in t-otal darkness, and whose a-ncestry mostly had eyes, do exist. Together with g-ene d-uplication, stream-lining e-volu-tion makes either e-vo-lu-tion or d-e-vol-ution able to produce major changes, through a combined process of minor s-ucces-sive mo-difications, proceeding to a new form better a-dapted to the e-nvironment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A.rch.M.oti.on
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
And, with response to a few comments, please see previous text:
| Quote: | | But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point. ) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
