The Evolution Myth

[Contratrombone64]

Funny, the current issue of National Geographic has a large chapter devoted to The Origin of Species ... a good read.

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Pistike,

not sure whether you are still there and whether you have a desire for the further discussion, so I think I will better ask first...

Thank you for your good wishes, I am almost over with rebuilding of my studio - now it all works again, at least. If VISTA is a product of evolution of the Microsoft software, then it must be explainable, why I am not a fan of evolution

The pause helped me also to sort the things out, now it seems to me we were talking of different matters, without understanding each other.

The fact that humans and chimps share the same steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene in the same place in the genome is a smoking gun, forensic evidence of shared ancestry that is nearly impossible to explain in any other context than the evolution of species from common ancestors.

As I understand you NOW, you are saying that the shared pseudogene is THE evidence of the common ancestry. Ok, but the actual question is -
do you see ,in turn, the common ancestry as a proof of evolution?

Regards
Andrew

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

As I understand you NOW, you are saying that the shared pseudogene is THE evidence of the common ancestry. Ok, but the actual question is -
do you see ,in turn, the common ancestry as a proof of evolution?

I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion. The Creationist Shell Game is amusing for a while, but soon it gets futile and discouraging.

I can't correct every one of the countless bizarre misconceptions creationists have about evolutionary theory, and make up for the shortcomings of their education. I can't track down every quote they mine from evolutionary biologists and point out where this scientist was quoted out of context. I can't get them to stick to assessing the evidence instead of talking about paradigms and natural selection mindsets and similar evasions. Their rabbithole of numbnuttery is dark and deep, and there seems to be no way to get them out of it.

And that's the conspiracy theory's aim: to stifle real inquiry and constructive dialogue. To ignore context, and launch irresponsible accusations of brainwashing and deceit. To pander to people's religious guilt, their feeling of victimization, and their ignorance of science, history, and philosophy.

Asking questions about biology on an Internet message board is like looking for your keys where you know you won't find them. If you're honestly interested in learning about evolution, Andrew, go to a biology or genetics expert at a university and ask about natural history.

Regards,

Pistike

[Andrew Roussak]

Pistike,

no probs, if you don't want to answer or discuss anymore - it is acceptable. Any discussion like that, is, first, a very time consuming thing.

Still, I want to point out the expressions like "rabbithole" ( thanks for not saying "rathole", at least ), and "ignorance" in your post. Simply labelling me as a creationist apriori is not fair ( of course, it is still unclear for me, what do you exactly mean by that. There are lots of opinions not consonant with ET. Of course you may want to classify each person who does not accept ET as a creationist or as a conspiracy theories freak . But then it is not my problem anymore ).

As you left my question without any answer, I can only state the fact that this discussion did not move an inch forward since Robert had opened it. All claims and all issues of ET are still there. Well, no result is a result as well.

Best of luck to you too,
Andrew

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

As you left my question without any answer, I can only state the fact that this discussion did not move an inch forward since Robert had opened it. All claims and all issues of ET are still there. Well, no result is a result as well.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist: "no evidence was presented that I saw, because I closed my eyes the entire time."

As I said, Andrew, these online slapfights don't really have any bearing on the facts of modern science. If you want to get a realistic appreciation of all claims and all issues of evolutionary theory (instead of the incoherent bunch of misconceptions you've posted here), you have to make a sincere effort at inquiry. Go to a university and talk to a professor of genetics or biology.

What do you have to lose?

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Andrew Roussak]

Pistike,

looks like we simply can't say good bye to each other..

Why not simply answer the question?

As for your advice to go to University, thank you, maybe I will do it. But, I have HUMBOLDT - KOSMOS ( a magazine published by Alexander von Humboldt foundation, Germany ) here on my table, Nr. 92/2008. President of AvH Prof. Helmut Schwarz talks in his interview exactly about the current issues in modern chemistry and biology, so I think I can spare me a visit to Uni this time.

I think it would be no mistake to summarize the arguments in favor of ET you have presented here. These were, actually , only two -

- the vast majority;
- the common ancestry.

I am inclined to regard all other points like "conspiracy theories", "ignorance" as a simple rhetoric because they don't prove anything and raise no questions.

So, appelation to "vast majority" can be used, more likely, to press someone to change his opinion. If the opinion of the "vast majority" was always true, we had still believed in a flat Earth. This is therefore no argument.

Thus, your actual point is ( as I understand it ) - the common ancestry is a proof of evolution. Yes or no? Can you just answer this question?

Cheers overseas,
Andrew

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

I can spare me a visit to Uni this time.

Of course you can. Why would you talk to a real expert, who might disabuse you of the mistaken notions you have about biology? Conspiracy theorists always cherry-pick their "experts," and avoid actual contact with the majority of authorities as they would the Plague itself. It's part and parcel of ignoring context and seeking confirmation for what you've already decided to believe.

I'm through answering your questions. It's pretty obvious you're not interested in real inquiry. You're happy living in your well-reinforced delusion where evolution is a dying paradigm, and the entire subject hinges on whether Andrew affirms it or not. Any question he raises has to be answered in excruciating detail, so that he can play the next round of the shell game and ask more irrelevant questions.

Best of luck, Andrew.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Andrew Roussak]

I'm through answering your questions. It's pretty obvious you're not interested in real inquiry. You're happy living in your well-reinforced delusion where evolution is a dying paradigm, and the entire subject hinges on whether Andrew affirms it or not. Any question he raises has to be answered in excruciating detail, so that he can play the next round of the shell game and ask more irrelevant questions.

Thank you , Pistike.

You are an opponent one can only dream of!

Quite obviously, no questions more.

Regards,
Andrew

[Corno Dolce]

*I'M THROUGH ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS* - WOW!!! Is this a pissing contest or what???

[Pista Gyerek]

CD,

I've tried to answer questions since I entered this thread, to no avail. But when I asked you questions in this post, you never bothered to answer.

So, in the interests of an upbuilding discourse, what should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Whose expertise should we recognize as valid and why? What is it about Darwin's theory is invalid, and why would so many people (believers and nonbelievers alike) affirm it if it's nothing more than a fairy tale?

I'm sorry you have no interest in dialogue on this subject.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Piste,

You accused me of being contemptuous and intolerant - What am I to say? You cut off the channel of dialogue and you expect me to answer a question?

And now you seem to get your way with Andrew with your arrogance?

Sorry, but I see no channel of communication open.

Over and out.............

[sunwaiter]

I have tried several other forums, among which some are Evolution/Creation focused, and the result is so slightly different than here. I'm really pessimistic as to people's ability to hear each other, at a certain stage.

Anyway, best wishes,and thanks to everyone, including Pista, who's been even more patient than i've been.

[Pista Gyerek]

CD,

Unfortunately, you're guilty of the same arrogance you accuse others of.

Was I supposed to praise you for your tolerance when you expressed your contempt for any Christian who affirms the evolution of species by natural selection? This scientific debate should be settled on the evidence, not your inclination to exploit people's religious guilt.

Was I supposed to express admiration for your open-mindedness when you said you couldn't care less how many experts or how many volumes of authoritative research indicated that species evolve? Once again, your dogmatism may satisfy you, but it isn't conducive to a constructive dialogue.

Was I supposed to compliment you on your maturity and tact when you disappeared after I asked you questions, but returned to lob nasty comments from the peanut gallery? So much for civil discourse.

This is a real mug's game of chess you're playing: I have to follow the rules, but you can move the pieces any way you want. Call it what you like, CD, but it ain't chess.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[RoyM]

Loren Eiseley make a lot of sense in The Incredible Journey. He doesn't rule out the divine but does make a lot of sense. One of my Favorite writers (now gone). A scientist who could write for that common man.

[Contratrombone64]

Oh god how I miss Robert Newman (not), yet he seems to have been replace here by other zealots who have a firm belief in fairy tales. Good read this thread, has kept me amused for a while now.