Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Proof Of Evolution.
Proof Of Evolution.
Proof Of Evolution.
On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
<no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
> You have given zero proof of macroevolution
> and that is what you need to prove and can't.
> Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
> Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
> prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
Everything that exists is an evolution.
>From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
stars: Everything without a single exception.
This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
physical impossibilities become not only possible
but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
The classical historical example is when Galileo
showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
corrupt... and that because we were God's special
creation the universe circled the earth:
IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
be instantly convinced when he looked through his
telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
Jupiter and other mere planets!
But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
eyes were seeing.
It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
human beings suffer no end.
But I will persist, none-the-less, and mention in
passing the evolution of pathogens which is killing
a whole lot of atheists and theists alike: By the
simplest laws of Darwinian adaptation of the fittest
pathogens which used to kill us in great numbers
were "conquered" by our discovery of antibiotics.
We literally "flushed" the deadly pathogens from
our system and kept them out by a great flood of
antibiotics... forgetting that evolution and not God
or even all our human efforts is what rules the
universe.
Well, we DID kill most of the deadly pathogens, but
the survivors "adapted" to the new environment of
antibiotics. And now the "evolved" pathogens are
returning the state of affairs to the way it used to
be before our discovery of antibiotics--With an ironic
twist: because the newly evolved pathogens actually
thrive in a body flushed with antibiotics, giving
those antibiotics to people sickened with such
pathogens actually makes things worst than were
they not given any antibiotics at all! (We can still
invent newer antibiotics, of course, but evolution
will ensure that the matter will always rest where it
has always rested: in a never-ending arms-race
between living organisms to see which wins the
reproduction race. I have my money on the worst
bugs, whether that turn out to be they or us.)
Ignore the truth of evolution at your own peril.
In the case of H.I.V. research, there was also a
curious instance in which evolution can be seen
playing a quite dramatic role:
Researchers were able to kill off a large percentage
of the AIDS virus (it doesn't matter which for this
example) with a heavy concoction of drugs, and
patients seemed to thrive. But then they began to
sicken again. Stubborn as people are, and doctors
are people too, they persisted on the regimen of
drugs being administered. With sad consequences.
Then some patients decided, on their own, to stop
taking the cocktail of drugs; and actually improved
without any drugs. But it was not magic, it was
evolution at work:
The original viruses were killed (suppressed) by the
cocktail of drugs... leaving only those viruses best
"adapted" to an environment flushed with the drugs
cocktail to "reproduce." Then, when the drugs were
removed, those viruses "best adapted" to live in an
environment without the drugs "replaced" the newly-
evolved viruses. And we go back to the same old
arms-race that evolution has unleashed upon this
earth since its beginnings, worlds without end.
But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
It may be a great tragedy to the individual, but
death ensures that every generation of creatures is
the best adapted to survive in whatever existence
this planet offers--Something which is completely
unpredictable: Therefore, were it the case that life
depended on some well-thought-out plan, instead of
on blind evolution, I simply cannot imagine how on
earth life might have avoided some catastrophically
stupid blunder long before now and killed itself...
rather than waiting for something to kill it (as it
now does with simply stunning success). [sic.]
S D Rodrian
* poems.sdrodrian . com
* physics.sdrodrian . com
* mp3s.sdrodrian . com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
Proof Of Evolution.
On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
<no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
> You have given zero proof of macroevolution
> and that is what you need to prove and can't.
> Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
> Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
> prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
Everything that exists is an evolution.
>From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
stars: Everything without a single exception.
This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
physical impossibilities become not only possible
but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
The classical historical example is when Galileo
showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
corrupt... and that because we were God's special
creation the universe circled the earth:
IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
be instantly convinced when he looked through his
telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
Jupiter and other mere planets!
But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
eyes were seeing.
It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
human beings suffer no end.
But I will persist, none-the-less, and mention in
passing the evolution of pathogens which is killing
a whole lot of atheists and theists alike: By the
simplest laws of Darwinian adaptation of the fittest
pathogens which used to kill us in great numbers
were "conquered" by our discovery of antibiotics.
We literally "flushed" the deadly pathogens from
our system and kept them out by a great flood of
antibiotics... forgetting that evolution and not God
or even all our human efforts is what rules the
universe.
Well, we DID kill most of the deadly pathogens, but
the survivors "adapted" to the new environment of
antibiotics. And now the "evolved" pathogens are
returning the state of affairs to the way it used to
be before our discovery of antibiotics--With an ironic
twist: because the newly evolved pathogens actually
thrive in a body flushed with antibiotics, giving
those antibiotics to people sickened with such
pathogens actually makes things worst than were
they not given any antibiotics at all! (We can still
invent newer antibiotics, of course, but evolution
will ensure that the matter will always rest where it
has always rested: in a never-ending arms-race
between living organisms to see which wins the
reproduction race. I have my money on the worst
bugs, whether that turn out to be they or us.)
Ignore the truth of evolution at your own peril.
In the case of H.I.V. research, there was also a
curious instance in which evolution can be seen
playing a quite dramatic role:
Researchers were able to kill off a large percentage
of the AIDS virus (it doesn't matter which for this
example) with a heavy concoction of drugs, and
patients seemed to thrive. But then they began to
sicken again. Stubborn as people are, and doctors
are people too, they persisted on the regimen of
drugs being administered. With sad consequences.
Then some patients decided, on their own, to stop
taking the cocktail of drugs; and actually improved
without any drugs. But it was not magic, it was
evolution at work:
The original viruses were killed (suppressed) by the
cocktail of drugs... leaving only those viruses best
"adapted" to an environment flushed with the drugs
cocktail to "reproduce." Then, when the drugs were
removed, those viruses "best adapted" to live in an
environment without the drugs "replaced" the newly-
evolved viruses. And we go back to the same old
arms-race that evolution has unleashed upon this
earth since its beginnings, worlds without end.
But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
It may be a great tragedy to the individual, but
death ensures that every generation of creatures is
the best adapted to survive in whatever existence
this planet offers--Something which is completely
unpredictable: Therefore, were it the case that life
depended on some well-thought-out plan, instead of
on blind evolution, I simply cannot imagine how on
earth life might have avoided some catastrophically
stupid blunder long before now and killed itself...
rather than waiting for something to kill it (as it
now does with simply stunning success). [sic.]
S D Rodrian
* poems.sdrodrian . com
* physics.sdrodrian . com
* mp3s.sdrodrian . com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
"sdr" wrote
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
This is a bit harsh. According to the DSM, it is the inability
to compartmentalize such thoughts in socially acceptable
ways that characterizes mental illness.
(I understand you were probably just ranting, but there are
some legitimate issues.)
The problem I have with making this a psychological issue
is a good argument could be made for scientific theories
being in fact psychological theories in that they reflect
the reality testing of a certain type of personality. This
means scientific thinking is just as biased, only in the
opposite direction.
The objection that science works just means you were
lucky enough to be brainwashed by people who were much
more sophisticated:
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
Another problem is if you are so scientifically sophisticated,
why don't you realize it is a major evil to stigmatize what at
the time was accepted as legitimate reasoning by labeling
it a mental illness? There is obviously no direct correlation
with magical thinking and torturing people, so the two are
distinct issues.
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
This is a naive interpretation. The major conceptual hurdle
was how a craftsman lens grinder could shed light on
what was considered a purely intellectual issue.
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing.
Most people wouldn't even look through the lens, so the
Pope doing so could be seen as a positive step forward.
Also, the Scholastic interpretation was the lens being
earthly was in fact corrupting the image of the moon;
you can laugh, but it is logical. The problem with seeing
this just as the dogmatic acceptance of an implausible
worldview is it made perfect sense to them at the time.
> And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
>
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
A cynic would claim a great many Popes simply used
such nonsense as a way of keeping in power. Bertrand
Russell thought so.
--
Craig Franck
craig . fr anck@verizon . net
Cortland, NY
"sdr" wrote
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
This is a bit harsh. According to the DSM, it is the inability
to compartmentalize such thoughts in socially acceptable
ways that characterizes mental illness.
(I understand you were probably just ranting, but there are
some legitimate issues.)
The problem I have with making this a psychological issue
is a good argument could be made for scientific theories
being in fact psychological theories in that they reflect
the reality testing of a certain type of personality. This
means scientific thinking is just as biased, only in the
opposite direction.
The objection that science works just means you were
lucky enough to be brainwashed by people who were much
more sophisticated:
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
Another problem is if you are so scientifically sophisticated,
why don't you realize it is a major evil to stigmatize what at
the time was accepted as legitimate reasoning by labeling
it a mental illness? There is obviously no direct correlation
with magical thinking and torturing people, so the two are
distinct issues.
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
This is a naive interpretation. The major conceptual hurdle
was how a craftsman lens grinder could shed light on
what was considered a purely intellectual issue.
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing.
Most people wouldn't even look through the lens, so the
Pope doing so could be seen as a positive step forward.
Also, the Scholastic interpretation was the lens being
earthly was in fact corrupting the image of the moon;
you can laugh, but it is logical. The problem with seeing
this just as the dogmatic acceptance of an implausible
worldview is it made perfect sense to them at the time.
> And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
>
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
A cynic would claim a great many Popes simply used
such nonsense as a way of keeping in power. Bertrand
Russell thought so.
--
Craig Franck
craig . fr anck@verizon . net
Cortland, NY
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific principles
of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place. How would
one describe the process of aging, without describing the evolutionary
process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific principles
of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place. How would
one describe the process of aging, without describing the evolutionary
process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
"Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:-ZKdnRCs2bIBVQPbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific
> principles of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place.
> How would one describe the process of aging, without describing the
> evolutionary process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
I know of no 'multiversal principle' that says that death in the form of
aging (~ fraying teleomeres facilitating cell senescence) is the only way a
biological evolution can be prevented from clogging itself up and grinding
to a halt.
May be in a slightly different universe evolution might be able to invent
programmed sudden death at a plateaued peak of individual health by way of
some kind of 'counter' of some kind of other compounding intrinsic and
extrinsic factors.
P
"Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:-ZKdnRCs2bIBVQPbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific
> principles of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place.
> How would one describe the process of aging, without describing the
> evolutionary process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
I know of no 'multiversal principle' that says that death in the form of
aging (~ fraying teleomeres facilitating cell senescence) is the only way a
biological evolution can be prevented from clogging itself up and grinding
to a halt.
May be in a slightly different universe evolution might be able to invent
programmed sudden death at a plateaued peak of individual health by way of
some kind of 'counter' of some kind of other compounding intrinsic and
extrinsic factors.
P
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail . com .au> wrote in message
news:46a701f5$1$31423$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet . net .au...
>
> "Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:-ZKdnRCs2bIBVQPbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific
>> principles of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place.
>> How would one describe the process of aging, without describing the
>> evolutionary process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
>
> I know of no 'multiversal principle' that says that death in the form of
> aging (~ fraying teleomeres facilitating cell senescence) is the only way
> a biological evolution can be prevented from clogging itself up and
> grinding to a halt.
>
> May be in a slightly different universe evolution might be able to invent
> programmed sudden death at a plateaued peak of individual health by way of
> some kind of 'counter' of some kind of other compounding intrinsic and
> extrinsic factors.
>
> P But death, or maximum life span is programmed. The dangerous of life may
> intervene and cause death, and genetic mutation, part of the evolutionary
> process may lead to death prior to other pre-programmed genetic
> senescence. Look at turtles, lifespan, and reproductive output, then
> look at rabbits and mice, and their lifespans and reproductive output.
> That is in our universe, on our planet.
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@ozemail . com .au> wrote in message
news:46a701f5$1$31423$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet . net .au...
>
> "Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:-ZKdnRCs2bIBVQPbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> Just the process of aging, to one who understands the scientific
>> principles of evolution, is reverse proof that evolution is taking place.
>> How would one describe the process of aging, without describing the
>> evolutionary process, if one is going to go into root cause analysis.
>
> I know of no 'multiversal principle' that says that death in the form of
> aging (~ fraying teleomeres facilitating cell senescence) is the only way
> a biological evolution can be prevented from clogging itself up and
> grinding to a halt.
>
> May be in a slightly different universe evolution might be able to invent
> programmed sudden death at a plateaued peak of individual health by way of
> some kind of 'counter' of some kind of other compounding intrinsic and
> extrinsic factors.
>
> P But death, or maximum life span is programmed. The dangerous of life may
> intervene and cause death, and genetic mutation, part of the evolutionary
> process may lead to death prior to other pre-programmed genetic
> senescence. Look at turtles, lifespan, and reproductive output, then
> look at rabbits and mice, and their lifespans and reproductive output.
> That is in our universe, on our planet.
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
On 17 Jul, 23:49, "Craig Franck" <craig . fr a...@verizon . net > wrote:
> "sdr" wrote
>
> > I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> > And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> > obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> > use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> > unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> > that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> > in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> > even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
>
> This is a bit harsh. According to the DSM, it is the inability
> to compartmentalize such thoughts in socially acceptable
> ways that characterizes mental illness.
>
> (I understand you were probably just ranting, but there are
> some legitimate issues.)
>
> The problem I have with making this a psychological issue
> is a good argument could be made for scientific theories
> being in fact psychological theories in that they reflect
> the reality testing of a certain type of personality.
go on then. Make the case.
> This
> means scientific thinking is just as biased, only in the
> opposite direction.
the opposite direction to what?
> The objection that science works just means you were
> lucky enough to be brainwashed by people who were much
> more sophisticated:
pure crap. Your computer only works because you were brain washed to
believe it works? Really?
Havn't we got past this post modernist relativism yet?
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
On 17 Jul, 23:49, "Craig Franck" <craig . fr a...@verizon . net > wrote:
> "sdr" wrote
>
> > I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> > And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> > obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> > use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> > unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> > that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> > in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> > even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
>
> This is a bit harsh. According to the DSM, it is the inability
> to compartmentalize such thoughts in socially acceptable
> ways that characterizes mental illness.
>
> (I understand you were probably just ranting, but there are
> some legitimate issues.)
>
> The problem I have with making this a psychological issue
> is a good argument could be made for scientific theories
> being in fact psychological theories in that they reflect
> the reality testing of a certain type of personality.
go on then. Make the case.
> This
> means scientific thinking is just as biased, only in the
> opposite direction.
the opposite direction to what?
> The objection that science works just means you were
> lucky enough to be brainwashed by people who were much
> more sophisticated:
pure crap. Your computer only works because you were brain washed to
believe it works? Really?
Havn't we got past this post modernist relativism yet?
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
On 17 Jul, 22:34, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian . com > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
> > You have given zero proof of macroevolution
> > and that is what you need to prove and can't.
> > Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
> > Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
> > prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>
> Everything that exists is an evolution.
you seem to confusing two different things. There is
evolution-1 that is mere change over time, and there is evolution-2
that is biological evolution.
I'd dispute that *everything* evolves. What about physical laws?
Mathematics?
> >From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
>
> stars: Everything without a single exception.
atoms don't evolve
> This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
> and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
> process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
> in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
> AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
rubbish
> Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
> physical impossibilities become not only possible
> but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
read a book on quantum mechanics
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
no
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
it is wrong aad stupid to describe people who's opinions
you dislike or disagreee with as mentally ill.
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
>
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
this is a mischarcterisation of the historical events.
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
>
> But I will persist, none-the-less, and mention in
> passing the evolution of pathogens which is killing
> a whole lot of atheists and theists alike: By the
> simplest laws of Darwinian adaptation of the fittest
> pathogens which used to kill us in great numbers
> were "conquered" by our discovery of antibiotics.
>
> We literally "flushed" the deadly pathogens from
> our system and kept them out by a great flood of
> antibiotics... forgetting that evolution and not God
> or even all our human efforts is what rules the
> universe.
evolution does not "rule the universe"
> Well, we DID kill most of the deadly pathogens, but
> the survivors "adapted" to the new environment of
> antibiotics. And now the "evolved" pathogens are
> returning the state of affairs to the way it used to
> be before our discovery of antibiotics--With an ironic
> twist: because the newly evolved pathogens actually
> thrive in a body flushed with antibiotics, giving
> those antibiotics to people sickened with such
> pathogens actually makes things worst than were
> they not given any antibiotics at all!
do you have a cite for this?
> (We can still
> invent newer antibiotics, of course, but evolution
> will ensure that the matter will always rest where it
> has always rested: in a never-ending arms-race
> between living organisms to see which wins the
> reproduction race. I have my money on the worst
> bugs, whether that turn out to be they or us.)
we are bugs?
> Ignore the truth of evolution at your own peril.
>
> In the case of H.I.V. research, there was also a
> curious instance in which evolution can be seen
> playing a quite dramatic role:
>
> Researchers were able to kill off a large percentage
> of the AIDS virus (it doesn't matter which for this
> example) with a heavy concoction of drugs, and
> patients seemed to thrive. But then they began to
> sicken again. Stubborn as people are, and doctors
> are people too, they persisted on the regimen of
> drugs being administered. With sad consequences.
>
> Then some patients decided, on their own, to stop
> taking the cocktail of drugs; and actually improved
> without any drugs. But it was not magic, it was
> evolution at work:
>
> The original viruses were killed (suppressed) by the
> cocktail of drugs... leaving only those viruses best
> "adapted" to an environment flushed with the drugs
> cocktail to "reproduce." Then, when the drugs were
> removed, those viruses "best adapted" to live in an
> environment without the drugs "replaced" the newly-
> evolved viruses.
do you have a cite for this?
> And we go back to the same old
> arms-race that evolution has unleashed upon this
> earth since its beginnings, worlds without end.
>
> But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
> It may be a great tragedy to the individual, but
> death ensures that every generation of creatures is
> the best adapted to survive in whatever existence
> this planet offers--
no. The current generation is fitted for the environment
previous generations were adapted to. Evolution
is always ready to fight the previous war.
> Something which is completely
> unpredictable: Therefore, were it the case that life
> depended on some well-thought-out plan, instead of
> on blind evolution, I simply cannot imagine how on
> earth life might have avoided some catastrophically
> stupid blunder long before now and killed itself...
> rather than waiting for something to kill it (as it
> now does with simply stunning success). [sic.]
--
Nick Keighley
On 17 Jul, 22:34, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian . com > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
> > You have given zero proof of macroevolution
> > and that is what you need to prove and can't.
> > Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
> > Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
> > prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>
> Everything that exists is an evolution.
you seem to confusing two different things. There is
evolution-1 that is mere change over time, and there is evolution-2
that is biological evolution.
I'd dispute that *everything* evolves. What about physical laws?
Mathematics?
> >From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
>
> stars: Everything without a single exception.
atoms don't evolve
> This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
> and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
> process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
> in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
> AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
rubbish
> Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
> physical impossibilities become not only possible
> but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
read a book on quantum mechanics
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
no
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
it is wrong aad stupid to describe people who's opinions
you dislike or disagreee with as mentally ill.
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
>
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
this is a mischarcterisation of the historical events.
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
>
> But I will persist, none-the-less, and mention in
> passing the evolution of pathogens which is killing
> a whole lot of atheists and theists alike: By the
> simplest laws of Darwinian adaptation of the fittest
> pathogens which used to kill us in great numbers
> were "conquered" by our discovery of antibiotics.
>
> We literally "flushed" the deadly pathogens from
> our system and kept them out by a great flood of
> antibiotics... forgetting that evolution and not God
> or even all our human efforts is what rules the
> universe.
evolution does not "rule the universe"
> Well, we DID kill most of the deadly pathogens, but
> the survivors "adapted" to the new environment of
> antibiotics. And now the "evolved" pathogens are
> returning the state of affairs to the way it used to
> be before our discovery of antibiotics--With an ironic
> twist: because the newly evolved pathogens actually
> thrive in a body flushed with antibiotics, giving
> those antibiotics to people sickened with such
> pathogens actually makes things worst than were
> they not given any antibiotics at all!
do you have a cite for this?
> (We can still
> invent newer antibiotics, of course, but evolution
> will ensure that the matter will always rest where it
> has always rested: in a never-ending arms-race
> between living organisms to see which wins the
> reproduction race. I have my money on the worst
> bugs, whether that turn out to be they or us.)
we are bugs?
> Ignore the truth of evolution at your own peril.
>
> In the case of H.I.V. research, there was also a
> curious instance in which evolution can be seen
> playing a quite dramatic role:
>
> Researchers were able to kill off a large percentage
> of the AIDS virus (it doesn't matter which for this
> example) with a heavy concoction of drugs, and
> patients seemed to thrive. But then they began to
> sicken again. Stubborn as people are, and doctors
> are people too, they persisted on the regimen of
> drugs being administered. With sad consequences.
>
> Then some patients decided, on their own, to stop
> taking the cocktail of drugs; and actually improved
> without any drugs. But it was not magic, it was
> evolution at work:
>
> The original viruses were killed (suppressed) by the
> cocktail of drugs... leaving only those viruses best
> "adapted" to an environment flushed with the drugs
> cocktail to "reproduce." Then, when the drugs were
> removed, those viruses "best adapted" to live in an
> environment without the drugs "replaced" the newly-
> evolved viruses.
do you have a cite for this?
> And we go back to the same old
> arms-race that evolution has unleashed upon this
> earth since its beginnings, worlds without end.
>
> But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
> It may be a great tragedy to the individual, but
> death ensures that every generation of creatures is
> the best adapted to survive in whatever existence
> this planet offers--
no. The current generation is fitted for the environment
previous generations were adapted to. Evolution
is always ready to fight the previous war.
> Something which is completely
> unpredictable: Therefore, were it the case that life
> depended on some well-thought-out plan, instead of
> on blind evolution, I simply cannot imagine how on
> earth life might have avoided some catastrophically
> stupid blunder long before now and killed itself...
> rather than waiting for something to kill it (as it
> now does with simply stunning success). [sic.]
--
Nick Keighley
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
"On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:41:30 -0700, in article
<1184848890.184253.164790@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com >, Nick Keighley
stated..."
>
>On 17 Jul, 22:34, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian . com > wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
>> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
>
>> > You have given zero proof of macroevolution
>> > and that is what you need to prove and can't.
>> > Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
>> > Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
>> > prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>>
>> Everything that exists is an evolution.
>
>you seem to confusing two different things. There is
>evolution-1 that is mere change over time, and there is evolution-2
>that is biological evolution.
>
>I'd dispute that *everything* evolves. What about physical laws?
>Mathematics?
[...snip...]
It reminds me of "everything is relative" as an expression
of Einstein's theories of relativity.
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
"On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:41:30 -0700, in article
<1184848890.184253.164790@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com >, Nick Keighley
stated..."
>
>On 17 Jul, 22:34, sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian . com > wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
>> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
>
>> > You have given zero proof of macroevolution
>> > and that is what you need to prove and can't.
>> > Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
>> > Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
>> > prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>>
>> Everything that exists is an evolution.
>
>you seem to confusing two different things. There is
>evolution-1 that is mere change over time, and there is evolution-2
>that is biological evolution.
>
>I'd dispute that *everything* evolves. What about physical laws?
>Mathematics?
[...snip...]
It reminds me of "everything is relative" as an expression
of Einstein's theories of relativity.
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
>
> atoms don't evolve
This is certainly not true. Apparantly at one time
energy formed into only one particular type of atom, and
later, at least under conditions as we know it, other more
complex atoms developed. At the time of the proposed
original quantum singularity, there probably were no atoms
as we conceptualize them today.
>
> atoms don't evolve
This is certainly not true. Apparantly at one time
energy formed into only one particular type of atom, and
later, at least under conditions as we know it, other more
complex atoms developed. At the time of the proposed
original quantum singularity, there probably were no atoms
as we conceptualize them today.
Re: Proof Of Evolution.
"sdr" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian . com > wrote in message
news:1184708076.826567.175390@e9g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Proof Of Evolution.
>
> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
>
>> You have given zero proof of macroevolution
>> and that is what you need to prove and can't.
>> Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
>> Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
>> prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>
> Everything that exists is an evolution.
You might have meant: is proof of evolution in a most general sense.
If you did I agree.
>
>>From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
> stars: Everything without a single exception.
>
> This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
> and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
> process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
> in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
> AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
>
> Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
> physical impossibilities become not only possible
> but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
I think I know what you are trying to say.
And I tend to agree.
However, I am not sure that "deterministic" is a word that is adequat for
characterizing how What Is is.
The fact is that not every realistically construed aspect of What Is going
on can be calculated; IOW an utmost uncertainty about how to estimate the
probability for some aspects will, I am convinced, always put a limit to our
ability to reason and compute.
>
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
>
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
>
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
>
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
I understand and share your sentiment.
<snip>
> But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
Definitely a perverse pontification!
But I can put up with it. ;-)
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
So it should be - because the process of science essentially involves an
evolving set of precision-improving methods for pursuing and pinning-down
(typically with increasing precision and efficiency)
general/universal/multiversal principles of What 'self-patterning' process
Is ultimately (universally and multiversally) going on.
"sdr" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian . com > wrote in message
news:1184708076.826567.175390@e9g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Proof Of Evolution.
>
> On Jul 15, 2:36 am, Pastor Dave
> <no...@nowhere . com > wrote to someone:
>
>> You have given zero proof of macroevolution
>> and that is what you need to prove and can't.
>> Bugs staying bugs does not equal "goo to you".
>> Nor does falsely labeling me do anything but
>> prove your true intent. Pastor Dave
>
> Everything that exists is an evolution.
You might have meant: is proof of evolution in a most general sense.
If you did I agree.
>
>>From ideas to creatures to rocks to atoms and
> stars: Everything without a single exception.
>
> This is how it is possible to KNOW that any
> and all proposals which exclude the evolutionary
> process from ANYTHING is self-evident proof
> in-and-of-itself that such a proposal is flawed
> AND therefore partly or entirely wrong.
>
> Existence is absolutely deterministic. Otherwise
> physical impossibilities become not only possible
> but almost inevitable. We become a realm of magic!
I think I know what you are trying to say.
And I tend to agree.
However, I am not sure that "deterministic" is a word that is adequat for
characterizing how What Is is.
The fact is that not every realistically construed aspect of What Is going
on can be calculated; IOW an utmost uncertainty about how to estimate the
probability for some aspects will, I am convinced, always put a limit to our
ability to reason and compute.
>
> I know that theists believe in nothing BUT magic.
> And that therefore reason and logic, even the most
> obvious and self-evident proofs & facts are of no
> use to counter their mental illness (for it is not
> unlike a madness, this unreasonable conviction
> that deists have that existence is everywhere awash
> in evidence of magic all around us). This sickness
> even permeates into science and retards/thwarts it.
>
> The classical historical example is when Galileo
> showed his telescope to the Pope. Dogma said that
> the heavens were perfect and only the earth was
> corrupt... and that because we were God's special
> creation the universe circled the earth:
>
> IF but looking upon the truth were enough to
> convince one of its rightness, surely the Pope would
> be instantly convinced when he looked through his
> telescope and saw the pox-faced Moon... and all
> sorts of heavenly bodies circling NOT the earth but
> Jupiter and other mere planets!
>
> But, the Pope looked, and the Pope saw, and the
> Pope had to admit to Galileo that he was seeing what
> he was seeing. And then, as we all know, the Pope
> showed Galileo the instruments of torture which he
> threatened to use on him if he did not publicly say
> that it was Dogma that was true and NOT what their
> eyes were seeing.
>
> It is a social sickness, a mental illness from which
> human beings suffer no end.
I understand and share your sentiment.
<snip>
> But don't despair: Life is impossible without death.
Definitely a perverse pontification!
But I can put up with it. ;-)
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
So it should be - because the process of science essentially involves an
evolving set of precision-improving methods for pursuing and pinning-down
(typically with increasing precision and efficiency)
general/universal/multiversal principles of What 'self-patterning' process
Is ultimately (universally and multiversally) going on.
