The Evolution Myth

[methodistgirl]

Aloha sunwaiter,

I appreciate your efforts and all what you have inputted above very much - however, there is a big Blackhole in the bloke's outlay which you have shared:

http://www.solarvoyager.com/images/wallart/Singularity_1280.jpg

There is this void I see because he cannot account for the presence of the very earth he walks on and the very heavens he gazes up into.

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know."

"Do you understand the band of the Pleiades, And have you opened the fence of Orion?"

"Do you know the movements of heaven or the events which take place together under heaven?"

Humbly,

CD

Corno, you just quoted the book of Job. I read it from time to time which
this book declares that God is in control of everything. It's us who mess
things up.
judy tooley

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Ms. Judy,

Yes, Job is such a perfect antidote to the galloping megalomaniacal egomania, pride, and hubris of humans.

Humbly,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

 

[Pista Gyerek]

So dear Pistike, you are still willing to discuss ET, please leave the conspiracy theories alone, it will not work. Try to kill us with the facts...

Well, what 'facts' would you consider persuasive? What evidence would convince you that all life on Earth shares ancestry?

I only ask because it seems that, in this thread, every time someone comes up with evidence that species evolve, you call it 'microevolution,' suggesting that it merely proves that there are variations in species. But when someone presents fossil or genetic evidence that large-scale evolution has taken place over time, by a cumulative process of millions of instances of this so-called 'microevolution,' it doesn't seem persuasive to you either. If you have to have the entire history of life on Earth replicated in the lab before you affirm that species have evolved, then literally nothing will conceivably persuade you. And you should be honest enough to admit it instead of wasting time pretending you're engaged in honest inquiry.

See, species evolution wasn't theorized until Industrial-Revolution-era excavations uncovered fossils of ancient species. Over time, many kinds of ancient and extinct species were discovered, resembling modern species to various extents. At the same time, Darwin was discovering the elasticity of varieties in nature, populations reacting to environmental changes by developing defenses and traits to increase their fitness. But is the process that makes modern populations differ from close relatives the same one that drives the change we see in the fossil record?

Genetics is the link between the vast change we see in the fossil record and the small changes we observe in contemporary species, strongly suggesting common ancestry of all life on Earth. We understand how DNA underpins the concept of ancestry well enough to make reliable paternity tests, and the same principle drives the theory of common descent: the greater the genetic variation between two species, the greater the time that has elapsed since their common ancestor lived. The degree of genetic variation explains the nested hierarchies we see in living species as being more than mere taxonomy: it points to ancestry.

So I repeat, what 'facts' would you find persuasive in discussing ET? What would be enough for you to affirm what the overwhelming majority of biologists affirm, that all life on Earth shares ancestry?

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Well, what 'facts' would you consider persuasive? What evidence would convince you that all life on Earth shares ancestry?

Dear Pistike,

I think explaining the mechanism of the evolution would be helpful. Of course this discussion should be inevitably made on an amateur level. You know that the Ph.D.s and Prof.s on genetics etc. will not discuss the matter here. But, the articles in, for example, NATURE, NEW SCIENTIST etc. are there for everyone, because even I could understand the conclusions.

So, I don't understand it, on my basic level, how and why the evolution could have made such thing as the human brain, for example. It is the most complicated thing in the Universe, as you surely know. You may want to GOOGLE for an interesting article on it:

NATURE NEWS, 11 Feb 2009, DARWIN 200: The Other Strand.

The culture is being made responsible for the things obviously working contrary to the natural selection ( a human is in no way fittier in the savage world than his "relatives" - apes. You may want to try to spent an hour naked in the forest to check it out. So, culture , in all its forms, have helped us to survive ). It surely makes sense; but the human, as such, must have been already there. WE NEEDED OUR BRAIN ALREADY IN PLACE TO CREATE THE CULTURE. WE NEEDED IT FIRST ,TO GET NAKED TO COME TO AN IDEA OF MAKING CLOTHES FOR US. And and and.....

Can you solve this prob for me?

For a microevolution and species - please take a look on the evolutionary tree. Once again, maybe I sound like an amateur. But then please explain me the following thing - you will find there, for example , an amphibia depicted as a FROG - an animal known to everyone, and a reptile depicted as a LIZARD on the next level ( or on the next stage ). With an arrow between them. Well, what is in this arrow ? If you understand evolution as a constant process, you should normally have the constant row of the forms morphing in each other, why then depicting only the well known existing species and concealing the intermediates? And, what can be an intermediate between FROG and LIZARD, even hypothetically? Between FROG and FISH - even if you say these were not the modern frog and fish , of course. Still, changing an environment from water to air is a leap, not a smooth process anyway.Then, could it be at all possible to define smth. more or less stable - such as species, these frog and lizard on the tree - in the world of evolution?

For a mechanism - but it is true that all examples being brought out by evolutionists prove the microevolution! At least, I - HONESTLY - did never see the contrary. Say, the famous peppered moth - it is an adaptation, right? Which has its limits. As far I understand it, you will need a qulitatively new genetic information , if you want to get to the next level. Where should this info come from? You may want to look ( click on the first link on the signature of Corno Dolce, just scroll up here a bit ) how Dawkins - a prof. in biology - can not answer this simple question. And I am not even a Ph.D.

For the evolution tree - Pistike, I can't argue with geneticists and microbiologists. You may want to scroll up here once again and find a link to the article in NEW SCIENTIST - it was posted by Robert Newman initially, the reposted by me. The contents - most of mutants are being produced, of course, on bacterias - they reproduce very quickly, they don't have a complex bisexual scheme etc. So the most of the experimental data is being accumulated here, and the most of conclusions could be made - the evolution , at least on this level, does not look like a tree. It is , likely, a web, with no actual trend upwards. If so, is not it only logical to expect the very same tendency on the upper levels? Furthermore, if you find NO TREND UPWARDS, what sense does it generally make, to use the term "EVOLUTION"?

In general - Pistike, I am not saying that, if ET is wrong, then creationism is the only answer. Truth may lie somewhere in the middle, I suppose. ID was, in fact, a direct response to an incapability of evolutionists to explain the facts which are in flashy discrepancy with "the fittiest will survive" and still form our everyday life. IMHO, one must be simply fair and courageous enough sometimes to say, well , we were wrong with that, and then go forward with an open mind. Until it's done, I can not help to understand the portraits of Darwin as the icons of the materialistic cult, and the ET as another form of the Marxist phylosophy.

Sincerely,
Andrew

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

My sister-in-law is from Kenya, and now lives in California. During a visit back to the village where she grew up, she met an old man who asked her where she had been for so long. She told him that she had moved too far away to visit often, literally on the other side of the Earth. The old man, in all seriousness, chided her for her poor education: he couldn't conceive that the world is round, much less that people could live on the "other side" of such a world without falling off into space.

Is the old man's personal incredulity relevant to the scientific concept of a spherical Earth? I only ask because you seem to consider your own personal incredulity relevant to the scientific concept of species evolution. You say you can't conceive of how the human brain could have evolved, or how billions of years of evolution could create such different organisms from a common ancestor, or how "new information" can get into the genome. Is scientific inquiry, then, dependent on your imagination or lack thereof?

Did you even read the article in New Scientist? Granted, it had a provocative title ("Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life"), but the authors only meant to point out that horizontal gene transfer is a completely different process than sexual reproduction, and makes our assumptions about the orderly process of species evolution even more complicated. But it doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, that species don't evolve. From the very same article you posted:

While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin's vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him.

Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary... but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."

No one is saying you have to be a genius or a PhD to understand the mechanism of evolution. I'm neither, and yet I grasp the concept that random mutations in the genome can produce variations in a population that natural selection can then act on. Can you conceive of random mutations producing beneficial traits, the way millions of geneticists and cell biologists do? Can you conceive of natural selection honing populations and producing the fitness we see in organisms in nature, the way millions of botanists and biologists do?

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Contratrombone64]

I'm thrilled to see that obnoxious Robert Newman is now banned from this forum, we can at least enter into banter and discussion without being slandered and misquoted. I think the moderators have acted with wisdom. Bravo to all of you.

Now if I had anything intelligent to say about evolution I would, but I'm just evolving my thoughts on that one, be patient!

 

[mathetes1963]

Robert Newman- banned?

Does this mean I can delete him from my "Ignore" list now?

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Pistike,

of course I have read it. If you so necessary want a quote:

The more we learn about microbes, the clearer it becomes that the history of life cannot be adequately represented by a tree. Hang on, you may be thinking. Microbes might be swapping genes left, right and centre, what does that matter? Surely the stuff we care about - animals and plants - can still be accurately represented by a tree, so what's the problem?
Well, for a start, biology is the science of life, and to a first approximation life is unicellular. Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn't appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way. "If there is a tree of life, it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life," says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.
More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

The problem is, everyone would quote the passage he likes the most. Whether it is 51%, or 49% a tree - I guess time will show. These are the most recent publications, and they show a trend, likely - what Darwin thought to be a tree, looks somewhat different, right?

Is the old man's personal incredulity relevant to the scientific concept of a spherical Earth? I only ask because you seem to consider your own personal incredulity relevant to the scientific concept of species evolution. You say you can't conceive of how the human brain could have evolved, or how billions of years of evolution could create such different organisms from a common ancestor, or how "new information" can get into the genome. Is scientific inquiry, then, dependent on your imagination or lack thereof?

Are you not beginning to be a bit personal? I have no probs with it, but - no , I can't conceive it. I have never read any more or less distinct explanation on this subject. Can you regard this as a question and simply explain this to me - well, how could human brain have evolved? What was the necessity for evolution to create such a complex thing which was of no use in the savage world, and consumes lots of energy to it? Adding millions of years to an actually unexplainable process does not help, IMHO. Simply explain me the logic of the process, and I would say OK to it - the processes of forming the mountains need billions of years too, but the process is itself explainable.

Btw, if you think that saying BILLIONS OF YEARS are magic words that can explain everything, I would expect that evolution would produce to us BMWs and PCs along with the living organisms. Any PC is by far not that complex as the smallest bacteria. So, what's the problem?

Can you conceive of random mutations producing beneficial traits, the way millions of geneticists and cell biologists do? Can you conceive of natural selection honing populations and producing the fitness we see in organisms in nature, the way millions of botanists and biologists do?

No one doubts that it happens, but all examples known to me speak about the microevolution. Or adaptation ( "peppered moth" ). Of course random mutations produce beneficiary traits - even I know that syberian house cats have longer furs than those in Egypt. But you mean that new species are being produced this way? Look, how many generations of horse breeders tried to breed - directly - a horse that can be faster than all other horses. The direct selection is more effective, than natural, of course, and they tried it for a pretty long time - during the whole human history actually. But the process has its limits, a horse still can not be so fast as a cheetah.
Actually all I wanted was an example of a new species produced by selection, or an explanation how do you exactly understand this -

No one is saying you have to be a genius or a PhD to understand the mechanism of evolution. I'm neither, and yet I grasp the concept that random mutations in the genome can produce variations in a population that natural selection can then act on.

Because I have read it many times already and still don't grasp, how does it exactly work. Can you explain it to me - say, on my previously given example, transition FISH-AMPHIBIA? If you don't like such a formulation - well, pre-fish to pre-frog. Transition water-land. Your choice.

I'm thrilled to see that obnoxious Robert Newman is now banned from this forum, we can at least enter into banter and discussion without being slandered and misquoted. I think the moderators have acted with wisdom. Bravo to all of you.

Now if I had anything intelligent to say about evolution I would, but I'm just evolving my thoughts on that one, be patient!

Well, I guess I have missed something here last week...I had no Internet connection there in San Fran. Can be a person banned from a forum because his views do not fit the mainstream? Sorry about that, whatever it was. Must read and think a bit of it, maybe I will leave as well.

Regards
Andrew

 

[Krummhorn]

I'm thrilled to see that obnoxious Robert Newman is now banned from this forum, we can at least enter into banter and discussion without being slandered and misquoted. I think the moderators have acted with wisdom. Bravo to all of you.

:tiphat: It was a collective decision amongst the forum staff.

Robert Newman- banned?

Does this mean I can delete him from my "Ignore" list now?

Yes ... you and me, both!! :lol:

. . . Well, I guess I have missed something here last week...I had no Internet connection there in San Fran. Can be a person banned from a forum because his views do not fit the mainstream? Sorry about that, whatever it was. Must read and think a bit of it, maybe I will leave as well. Regards
Andrew

Hi Andrew, and welcome back ... Glad your trip was a good one ... but, you didn't mention Lombard Street ... surely you drove down that one?

The ban of a member, in this case Robert Newman, had nothing to do with his views on Evolution fitting the mainstream.

I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, but the ban was purely a collective administrative decision, and all the staff involved agreed it was in the best interest of this forum as a whole, that he would no longer be allowed post within MIMF. This is not as easy as one thinks ... there is lots more to it than just clicking the BAN button with our mouse ... the decision is never easy and we hate doing it (except for spammers, whom we never hesitate banning for even one second) ... it's one of those crosses we, as forum staff members (who have many years of experience administrating forums), must bear and hope that everyone that was not involved with the decision will mostly agree with us.

Back to the discussion :up:. It's a good one, so the thread will remain open and all postings have, and will, remain intact.

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

These are the most recent publications, and they show a trend, likely - what Darwin thought to be a tree, looks somewhat different, right?

Yes, but the point is this: this research is fine-tuning our view of evolution, not rejecting it. You understand the distinction, right?

Can you regard this as a question and simply explain this to me - well, how could human brain have evolved?

Andrew, there are plenty of places online that will answer your questions. But you have to be open to the research available, as well as tolerant of the speculative nature of the inquiry.

Can you explain it to me - say, on my previously given example, transition FISH-AMPHIBIA? If you don't like such a formulation - well, pre-fish to pre-frog. Transition water-land. Your choice.

Your misconception is that you think modern species should evolve from other modern species. But you should be looking for fossil species instead. If you were to read a book like At The Water's Edge by Carl Zimmer, you would know what the mainstream research is on the primitive fish that first made it from water to land, as well as the ancient mammals who made it back to the water to give rise to marine mammals such as dolphins and whales.

I'm citing all this research under the assumption that you're actually willing to learn from the sources. If you've already made up your mind that evolution is impossible and no scientist can tell you otherwise, please let me know and I won't waste any more time citing scientific research.

Can be a person banned from a forum because his views do not fit the mainstream? Sorry about that, whatever it was. Must read and think a bit of it, maybe I will leave as well.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his views. The difference between you and Robert is that you are civil and he was not. It would be a great loss if you were to leave the forum.

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Lars,

Hi Andrew, and welcome back ... Glad your trip was a good one ... but, you didn't mention Lombard Street ... surely you drove down that one?

Thanks!! Wow, do you really read ALL posts here?
I have seen the crookedest street only a bit from a distance ( it was raining heavily that day ), but I know what you mean. It's crazy!!

The ban of a member, in this case Robert Newman, had nothing to do with his views on Evolution fitting the mainstream.

I have actually meant another thread - that Mozartean issue ( I clearly hear you saying "damn!!!" ). I do not support Robert's opinion on that, of course, but I have never made a detailed research on Mozart's music, and am even not a fan of Mozart, so what should I say here. He ( Robert ) has of course strange views on some things, but, you know, I am a member here since 2007 ( ??? - I guess ) and I can say, there were other people here who had strange views, there were times as discussion became very personal, and the participants were not banned.
But, well, it's not my business.

And hi, Pistike -

Andrew, there are plenty of places online that will answer your questions. But you have to be open to the research available, as well as tolerant of the speculative nature of the inquiry.

Thank you for the link, I will read it through - tomorrow, I hope!! Now it is 1 a.m. our time. I am not in san Fran anymore!
Of course will let you know what I think about it.

Your misconception is that you think modern species should evolve from other modern species. But you should be looking for fossil species instead. If you were to read a book like At The Water's Edge by Carl Zimmer, you would know what the mainstream research is on the primitive fish that first made it from water to land, as well as the ancient mammals who made it back to the water to give rise to marine mammals such as dolphins and whales.

Pistike, surely I won't come to read this book in the next future, but thanks for a brief explanation. Well, if it is okay for you, let's just regard the logic of my question - first, no, I am not actually saying the modern species...etc. You know. I have mentioned pre-fish as well, and you call it primitive fish. Good. There are ( or were ) creatures whose only world was water. Let us simply define them as FISH. No matter whether it looked like the modern perch or not. There are ( or were ) creatures who could not breath in the water - once again, like REPTILES. There were things who could make both - AMPHIBIAS. They are the neighbours on the evolution tree. As I understand it, you must be normally saying that REPTILES had AMPHIBIAS as an ancestor and they , in turn, were all nothing but FISH in the beginning. Okay. But, whatever it was, FISH had to be the FITTIEST thing that could live in the water. Otherwise no chance, right? So, it did not need LEGS, for example - only FINS. I don't see - on the same reason - how it could breath OUTSIDE of water - it just didn't need it . Well.

I have read what the theory of punctuated equilibrium says about this. A population gets isolated, then comes pressure on the population...mutations...you know. Yes, interesting. But, the transition "water-land", or "water-air" is simply to tough to allow any smooth change. You see, adding billions of years does not save the situation. The very first things, which have made it on land, should have been ALREADY ABLE TO BREATH AND TO WALK. Otherwise, the natural selection should have got nothing to select from.

So then, what possibilities are there for a smooth transition? Why should the evolution allow the legs, lungs to form within all these long years, and how the species with half-formed organs could be preferred? What is the use of an embrio leg if you can't walk with it? Or did it happen within one generation ( man, don't forget - all these things are bisexual to it! A beneficiary Harry is not enough - you would need a beneficiary Sally in the same population!!)?

Well, you see, if I don't understand anything - it must be a pretty basical misunderstanding...

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his views. The difference between you and Robert is that you are civil and he was not. It would be a great loss if you were to leave the forum.

Well, thank you, of course , man But this place is quite a luxury for me, so I disappear time after time and then come up again - as my piano students have vacations or like. So, the great loss has good chances to remain unnoticed...

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

So then, what possibilities are there for a smooth transition? Why should the evolution allow the legs, lungs to form within all these long years, and how the species with half-formed organs could be preferred? What is the use of an embrio leg if you can't walk with it?

Once again your lack of imagination lets you down.

The evolutionary process works by increments. You say a 'half-formed' organ would be of no use? Well, evolution begs to differ. Fully-formed legs weren't necessary for propulsion on land: the primitive fish with bony lobe-fins had an advantage over the ones with mere tissue. Fully-formed lungs weren't necessary for short forays out of water: those ancient lungfish that could swallow air and absorb the oxygen had the edge over fish with mere gills.

Again, your misunderstanding of the evolutionary process says nothing about the validity of the process itself: you consider these transitions (water-to-land or vice versa) insurmountable because you think they had to have been made in one step. Nature shows more ingenuity: the transitions were achieved in a cumulative series of small steps, each of which represented an improvement over the previous step.

The Carl Zimmer book I referenced above is a good pop-science overview of recent research on the evolutionary transitions between land and sea. Zimmer is a phenomenal writer who can convey these complex ideas relatively simply and directly.

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Andrew Roussak]

The evolutionary process works by increments. You say a 'half-formed' organ would be of no use? Well, evolution begs to differ. Fully-formed legs weren't necessary for propulsion on land: the primitive fish with bony lobe-fins had an advantage over the ones with mere tissue. Fully-formed lungs weren't necessary for short forays out of water: those ancient lungfish that could swallow air and absorb the oxygen had the edge over fish with mere gills.

Very well, Pistike, thank you for taking time. Still not pretty clear. But, once you feel tired to explain the things to me , just drop me a line!

Okay, I see that the discussion must now inevitably follow the familiar route - my next question must be the fossil record, right? That is, if you say "cumulative series of steps" over those millions of years, one would expect to find an uninterrupted row of fossils of these intermediates. Are they here?

Pistike, this was of course a provocative question, you don't need to answer. I have once had a similar discussion on another forum - in German. We were discussing this on an example "reptiles-birds", so I don't necessary want to repeat it. If you are really aware of real "missing links" found , FISH-AMPHIBIA , then just post the info here. I will gratefully accept it.

But , I have also other concerns - I have actually read it, that sharks appear in the fossil record even earlier than dinosaurs. Which means this killing machine did not significantly evolve since then? The shark is of course perfect for its purposes, it has its own niche - so why evolve ? But, it in turn must logically mean that other fish should have had such niches too - sharks must have had something for breakfast all those years .

Does Carl Zimmer explain what were the pressures which made the fish to leave its normal environment? Btw, does he ( and you ) understand evolution as a constant process, which takes places today as well, or was it punctual, by his ( and your ) opinion?

The last question ( for today !) - can you give your opinion on how life has started? Is abiogenesis possible or not? Just interested how you see it.

Pistike, I feel even sorry to burden you with all these questions. I appreciate your patience! But, you see that the situation itself is uneven -
you are defending ET, and I don't actually defend the creationist views. So I must ask, and you may want to answer.

Btw, if you want me to explain my views as well, just let me know ( so that you had something to laugh at )

Cheers,
Andrew

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

Okay, I see that the discussion must now inevitably follow the familiar route - my next question must be the fossil record, right? That is, if you say "cumulative series of steps" over those millions of years, one would expect to find an uninterrupted row of fossils of these intermediates. Are they here?

There are plenty of fossils of intermediate forms between prehistoric fish and prehistoric land animals. During the late Devonian, many aquatic creatures seemed to be suited for movement on land as well:

Panderichthys was a primitive fish, but one that appears to have had the ability to breathe air in the muddy shallows where it lived.

Tiktaalik is the next step, an entire genus of animals which could use their bony fins to propel them onto land. The spiracles on the tops of their heads indicated they had primitive lungs as well as gills.

Acanthostega had more recognizable limbs than the fins of Tiktaalik, and was at least suited to some movement on land. Its skull demonstrates adaptations to terrestrial feeding.

Ichthyostega is the transitional form that seems most suited to life on land: the shoulders and hips were well-developed for locomotion out of water, and the ribs and vertebrae supported greater lung capacity.

But , I have also other concerns - I have actually read it, that sharks appear in the fossil record even earlier than dinosaurs. Which means this killing machine did not significantly evolve since then? The shark is of course perfect for its purposes, it has its own niche - so why evolve ? But, it in turn must logically mean that other fish should have had such niches too - sharks must have had something for breakfast all those years .

In Darwinian evolution, populations respond to changes in the environment. Since their environment hasn't changed in the last hundred million years (and they have so few natural predators), most modern shark species can be traced back that far. There were primitive forms of sharks, too, but later these were replaced by the contemporary forms.

Does Carl Zimmer explain what were the pressures which made the fish to leave its normal environment?

First and foremost, the land was full of plant life that made easy prey for adventurous fish forms.

Btw, does he ( and you ) understand evolution as a constant process, which takes places today as well, or was it punctual, by his ( and your ) opinion?

The evolutionary process is certainly still happening today. 'Punctuated equilibrium' is merely the observation that the rate of evolution is not always constant, a point you made with reference to sharks. A new species may evolve quickly, then remain unchanged in the fossil record for millions of years.

The last question ( for today !) - can you give your opinion on how life has started? Is abiogenesis possible or not? Just interested how you see it.

This question doesn't deal with evolution, strictly speaking. How life initially came about has no real bearing on the question of the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

That said, I think there's some good research into autocatalysis of primitive replicating molecules. Stuart Kauffman talks about self-organizing systems which could have catalyzed crude replication of molecules. It's certainly interesting research, if very speculative.

Regards,

Pistike

 

[greatcyber]

:tiphat: It was a collective decision amongst the forum staff.



Yes ... you and me, both!! :lol:



Hi Andrew, and welcome back ... Glad your trip was a good one ... but, you didn't mention Lombard Street ... surely you drove down that one?

The ban of a member, in this case Robert Newman, had nothing to do with his views on Evolution fitting the mainstream.

I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, but the ban was purely a collective administrative decision, and all the staff involved agreed it was in the best interest of this forum as a whole, that he would no longer be allowed post within MIMF. This is not as easy as one thinks ... there is lots more to it than just clicking the BAN button with our mouse ... the decision is never easy and we hate doing it (except for spammers, whom we never hesitate banning for even one second) ... it's one of those crosses we, as forum staff members (who have many years of experience administrating forums), must bear and hope that everyone that was not involved with the decision will mostly agree with us.

Back to the discussion :up:. It's a good one, so the thread will remain open and all postings have, and will, remain intact.

I have heard of the ban of RN and have decided to return to the forums. I won't be unblocking him in any event, as I still have NO INTEREST in reading anything he has stated, either on the "myth" of evolution or in anything else. Too bad the ban doesn't include removing his name from just about every page and column in this forum.

In any event, thank you for your decision and my feelings are that he got what he deserved.

 

[sunwaiter]

OH. Since i had understood there was no real use (in terms of discussing the topic here) for me in posting anything that had the pretention to open doors of understanding (mine in the first place) and, why not, a little more humility, i just took as almost a habit to come here from time to time and take a quick look at what was said.

I don't know exactly why Robert Newman got banned, and i guess it's not my business and not in relation to this particular thread. But it seems to indicate that i wasn't getting paranoid when i felt there was no real discussion. Whatever the topic, when people don't hear each other, it's a sad experience to go through and an even sadder experience to witness.

The saddest thing about it is that Robert created this thread and it seems he won't be able to participate again (hope i'm wrong). I repeat what i have said to Robert and Andrew, among other people: i'm glad for having participated in this thread anyway, because anything fuels my mind. Robert made my interest in the evolution topic grew in a way i couldn't have thought of. I opened books that used to go under my nose before. I'm not talking about the bible though, because it seems to me it doesn't have anything to do with science. But even this book i may be reading one day.

Thanks to Pista Gyerek for his very valuable input, and to Andrew for keeping the discussion alive. I have read you with great interest.

Take care.

 

[Andrew Roussak]

OH. Since i had understood there was no real use (in terms of discussing the topic here) for me in posting anything that had the pretention to open doors of understanding (mine in the first place) and, why not, a little more humility, i just took as almost a habit to come here from time to time and take a quick look at what was said.

I don't know exactly why Robert Newman got banned, and i guess it's not my business and not in relation to this particular thread. But it seems to indicate that i wasn't getting paranoid when i felt there was no real discussion. Whatever the topic, when people don't hear each other, it's a sad experience to go through and an even sadder experience to witness.

The saddest thing about it is that Robert created this thread and it seems he won't be able to participate again (hope i'm wrong). I repeat what i have said to Robert and Andrew, among other people: i'm glad for having participated in this thread anyway, because anything fuels my mind. Robert made my interest in the evolution topic grew in a way i couldn't have thought of. I opened books that used to go under my nose before. I'm not talking about the bible though, because it seems to me it doesn't have anything to do with science. But even this book i may be reading one day.

Thanks to Pista Gyerek for his very valuable input, and to Andrew for keeping the discussion alive. I have read you with great interest.

Take care.

Hi Sunwaiter,

thank you for this post, it is also a great pleasure for me to know that you are still here, hope you are doing well! For Robert, I don't think it was because of this thread, and you have absolutely nothing to blame yourself of, anyway. You were, and are a very polite poster.

So, I would like it very much, to keep the discussion alive as well, but I can only do it stealing the time from myself, hope it is okay that I am not visiting everyday, as Robert ( who seemed to have lived in Internet )

Btw - you have answered my question that time, and I have noticed it only two days later ( the page was turned ). So, I did not respond, not because I wanted to ignore your answer - simply did not notice, seriously. You are mostly welcome, of course.

Regards to you, Pistike , all other participants.
Truly hope to be back tomorrow
Andrew.

 

[jhnbrbr]

I too can't help feeling a little sad that Robert is gone. Although i disagreed with most of what he said, there was a certain challenge in trying to expose the flaws in his arguments, even if there was no chance whatsoever of convincing him of them! It's a strange irony that someone who refused to accept the concept of extinction is now, in a way, extinct himself. I may even miss him a little.

[MISCHIEVOUS QUOTE DELETED BY AUTHOR]

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha jhnbrbr,

You'll have to excuse me if I find your statement about my being Mr. Newman's great admirer to be churlish in the extreme. Since he is not on this forum anymore I really feel its unfair to label me as an admirer. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt. My wish is that our Sr. Regulator Krummhorn would go in and redact your comment about my being an admirer. It stigmatises me un-necessarily and I find it un-appealing.

Sincerely,

CD

Ps: I still respect him for his candor and obvious intelligence despite it having ruffled feathers around here.

 

[greatcyber]

I too, am glad that this thread is still surviving as I look forward with keen interest on opposing points of view. Sometimes one simple phrase uttered by someone else may spur me to consider things that I may have never dreamed of before.

As long as there remains civility, humility and rationality, I ALWAYS enjoy learning something new every day. You can never be too old to learn.

Personally, I don't think it was "this" thread that lead to the expulsion of Robert, but his one-sided rantings in general. Of course, everyone has and should have the right to be entitled to their opinions. It is in how one shares them with the outside world that is a reflection on the true self. I can only hope Robert was humbled by the experience and takes away something positive from the experience. Maybe it will help in his day-to-day interactions with the world in the end.

I have no qualms in agreeing to disagree on any particular subject with another, but I always try and keep an open mind. That is just a life lesson that I learned, albeit the hard way.

Thanks to you all for your continued patience, sharing and consideration. May we all coexist peacefully.