Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11596625 -

Quote:
we should culminate our efforts to create and evolve our own theory, the theory of shroomerism.



You could be an social/cultural anthropologist!


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11596639 -

rizingfire:

I would like to address several aspects of your post:

1) Abiogenesis, the start of life from non-living matter, is not something evolution concerns; read the Origin of the Species. It also is something which is not presently understood in the same detail that evolution is. Most importantly, no biochemist is claiming that some lightning hit a rock and out sprung fully-formed cells. Your argument is both, with respect to evolution, a non sequitur and, with respect to abiogenesis, a strawman argument.
2) Your claims, if I interpret them correctly, closely follow other creationist arguments, such as that of Dembski, Behe, Gish, etc: that is, if science cannot explain X, then we may safely attribute X to the work of God. Presumably such logic is evidently false to all who read this.
3) Please refrain from posting pages and pages of quotes if you expect people to counter specific, factual claims. I would have liked to be able to address the science in more detail, but I have neither the time nor motivation to do so when your post encompasses such a wide range of creationist propaganda.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: fishfuse]
    #11597085 -

I doubt that poster had any idea what he was posting or whether it was valid or logical. It's most often those that condemn science that know the least about how it actually works.

If you want to dispute an idea you first have to learn what the idea is, as in understand it.

When I went to church I was told in no uncertain terms that to read non christian literature was to waste the precious time I could have been edifying myself with the word of god.:tongue:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Icelander]
    #11597212 -

Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book has biologists and geneticists across the country praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "Dr. Spetner has an extraordinary ability to present complex mathematical, statistical, and biological issues in a comprehensible manner."--Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Jewish Observer "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260140256&sr=8-1

"Each new revelation in genetic research, no matter how bizarre and unforeseen, can be construed as a ringing confirmation of the theory of evolution, or so evolutionary biologists would have us believe. With this book, Dr. Lee Spetner risks the wrath of the evolution establishment by challenging the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory, or "dogma" as he calls it. Evolutionists assume that the observed ability of organisms like finches and bacteria to adapt to altered environments is clear proof of the NDT, which holds that random mutations in the DNA molecule are a prime factor in these adaptations. But this inference is negated by compelling new evidence at every level of biology according to Spetner, whose credentials include an MIT doctorate in physics, expertise in molecular biology, and published papers on biology in prestigious scientific journals. Numerous experiments are cited indicating many of these survival modifications are linked to a particular class of nonrandom mutations responding on cue to specific changes in the environment. A given external stimulus will trigger the same chain reaction of hormone-induced DNA mutations every time, yielding an identical adaptive response.

Spetner claims research findings like these which don't fit approved doctrine are simply ignored by evolutionary biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths." She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics of the NDT will savor the hard-science rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories.

In a historical overview, the author reminds us that when the so-called synthetic theory was first crafted fifty years ago, DNA had yet to be discovered. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the functions and structure of the cell. We now know that mammals are composed of trillions of cells, each containing an information-packed DNA molecule and hundreds of interacting organelles. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: What if Darwin's quaint theory were advanced today for the first time? The proposal that a clumsy hypothetical mechanism modeled on eighteenth century economic theories and pigeon breeding practices could possibly account for the origins of EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in the incredibly complex universe of microbiology unfolding before our eyes would be laughable. The hodgepodge theory of evolution has become a religious faith so deeply ingrained in its adherents they appear oblivious to its absurdities. This book relates how stunning advances in biotechnology in just the past two decades have dramatically widened the gulf separating the realities of empirical science from the myths of neo-Darwinism.

A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding.

The author's diversified background, which also includes lectureships in information theory and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, enables him to speak expertly on a host of technical issues surrounding this subject. Laymen who've fallen behind the dazzling pace of microbiology will be intrigued by his lucid account of the counter-intuitive adaptive strategies in Nature's arsenal. The architecture and mechanisms of the DNA molecule are examined in depth, introducing lay readers to a host of basic concepts like introns, transitrons, point mutations, mutation rates, genetic information and heritable genetic switches. This potent brew is spiced with liberal doses of humorous asides and amusing anecdotes.

It should be noted that Spetner's work is narrowly focused on the purely secular, scientific aspects of his topic. It rarely strays into the domains of metaphysics or theology. Amazon reviewers of this book who parrot mindless shibboleths about creationism and gods of the gap as they did with Michael Behe's ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box " will clearly establish they either didn't read the book or have been hopelessly brainwashed in orthodox biology classes.

To appreciate the extent of evolutionists' distortions in the classroom, one has only to browse through a current biology textbook after reading Spetner. To cite one case, he has found thousands of examples of convergence, or parallel evolution, buried in the literature, so one might assume they are a significant fact of biological life. He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection. Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion. A typical nationally distributed college text, "Biology " by N.A. Campbell, contains 1200 pages saturated with evolution mythology, but just one short paragraph on convergence. An equally inextricable companion phenomenon, mimicry, is completely ignored. Other slanted omissions and distortions abound.

Spetner's definitive treatise on what many consider an extremely important issue deserves a much wider audience than it presently commands. Whereas the shelf space afforded the evolutionist tomes of Dawkins and Steven J. Gould in the mega book stores Barnes & Noble and Borders is measured in linear feet, "Not by Chance" is nowhere in sight, not even in inventory. These giant outlets are rapidly driving out alternative book sellers. The inability of an author of Spetner's stature to address a substantial segment of the population that would be sympathetic to his message amounts to de facto censorship by a quasi-monopolistic distribution system. Although most of them will never have the opportunity, avid evolutionists would find this slender volume an eye-opening read."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Life Upon Death]
    #11597236 -

Seems like one half of this discussion is just building walls...is there a text-block development coming in that I didn't know about?


In other words, tl;dr.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: rizingfire]
    #11597376 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #11597522 -

Quote:
Evolution does not have to be true... why do people so passionately think evolution is true?

its a great theory... but that doesnt mean it is a true description of our existance.

there are lots of holes - specifically - the evidence. now, of course, it is expected that there should not be much evidence because not many fossils survive. but that is not evidence in itself. it is just a reason that someone can be comfortable having less evidence than desired.

but in the end more evidence is needed.

creationist theories do not have to posit 6,000 year old universe. if there was a creative force in the universe, it could occur over any span of time.

you shouldnt believe in a creator, really, because there is no reason to believe so. however you also should be wary of believing in evolution. why not just accept that our origin is a fucking mystery?





Evolution is the general theory that animals change over time. How can that be refuted?? Animals don't stay the same for millions of years, they aren't unchanging. Animals, life, indeed all matter in the universe are in constant motion and eternal transition, changing from one form to another. It's nothing but metaphysics to say that such a concept could become antiqued. Science by its very nature is capable of giving, and does give, objective truth. We can trace everything back to its origins. Humans, life, matter, the universe, we can all trace them back to their origins, because human consciousness is capable of giving objective truth. These things exist independently of us, and they are given to us through sensation.

It's a fact that humans come from apes, but that isn't the main theme of evolution. Evolution is also a fact, that all life changes over time, DNA changes over time, matter changes over time. You can't deny that.  Whether there was some intelligent creator to start it all is not a fact, it's a useless abstraction, that stems from the personification of natural forces. Consciousness is not the origin of matter, matter is the origin of consciousness. Consciousness is nothing more than the supreme product of matter organized in a definite way, the final link on a chain that goes back 13.7 billion years, and even farther.


--------------------
wsws.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Kasu]
    #11598195 -

just because we're bipedal doesn't mean we come from apes.  so that one is definitely not a fact.

we come from apes but we have pig flesh? pig hearts?

why do all our bipedal "cousins" have 48 chromosomes and we have 46? what lightning strike did that?

how did we lose a chromosome per person? what's the evolutionary benefit of that?

we are the most defective animals on the planet, and yet we claim to rule it.

we're all a bunch of frankensteins.

i believe in evolution, i just think there's a lot more to it than we could ever know.

dna is like computer code, we have mapped out the alphabet and that's it! we still don't understand the grammar and syntax and so therefore nobody should be postulating their own rhetoric as to how and why it proves or disproves anything.

IMO


--------------------
in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11598289 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #11598341 -

yeah i understand that they fused. but why?

i'm totally with you here just trying to ask the right questions about the topic.


--------------------
in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11598396 -

Don't confuse natural phenomenon with conscious intervention. What we do every day is conscious intervention. Human consciousness is the highest product of matter that's organized in a particular way. Over time, simple matter becomes infinitely more complex. From the atomic arose the chemical, from the inorganic, the organic, from physiology to psychology.. Matter is constantly in motion, transforming from one form to another, from solid to liquid, from mechanical to heat, from electricity to magnetism, etc. Human consciousness is just another property of organized matter in motion.

Matter is not created by consciousness, consciousness is created by matter, by nature. We are all products of nature. If the source of creation is god, then the material world is god. If consciousness is God, then we, humans, are indeed God, in that we can manipulate matter and master nature.


--------------------
wsws.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11598442 -

dopestone said:
just because we're bipedal doesn't mean we come from apes.  so that one is definitely not a fact.

we come from apes but we have pig flesh? pig hearts?

why do all our bipedal "cousins" have 48 chromosomes and we have 46? what lightning strike did that?

how did we lose a chromosome per person? what's the evolutionary benefit of that?

we are the most defective animals on the planet, and yet we claim to rule it.

we're all a bunch of frankensteins.

i believe in evolution, i just think there's a lot more to it than we could ever know.

dna is like computer code, we have mapped out the alphabet and that's it! we still don't understand the grammar and syntax and so therefore nobody should be postulating their own rhetoric as to how and why it proves or disproves anything.

IMO



Taxonomically we are apes, just as we are mammals. With regards to the chromosomes, look up "polyploidy," etc: chromosomes can fuse, split, double, etc. We do know how DNA is interpreted. Without getting into too much detail, triplets of nucleotides, known as "codons", code for one of the 20 amino acids, which are then assembled, in the ribosomes, into polypeptides. DNA acts as a bunch of "recipes" for polypeptides, which include both proteins and enzymes. For more information, look up DNA translation/transcription and the genetic code. It's really interesting stuff.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: fishfuse]
    #11598557 -

what about infusing DNA with gold? what do you know about that?


--------------------
in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: dopestone]
    #11598667 -

Just because there are things that we cannot grasp doesn't mean that there is not answer to them. 

Take a dog, for example.  It is concious of life and it's suroundings... it experiences phenomenon.  And yet, there are obviously things that a dog cannot grasp.  It's mind will not allow it to understand math, science, and other human ways of thinking. 

Just because we cannot mentally grasp certain concepts, or find appropriate explanation for our existence, doesn't not mean a god has created it all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Blue Key]
    #11598851 -

We can grasp them, in time. There is no difference in principle between the thing-for-us and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. As humanity progresses, our inexact, incomplete knowledge becomes more exact and more complete, and we approach closer and closer to Absolute Truth.


--------------------
wsws.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Kasu]
    #11598889 -

To stop questioning and theorizing is to stop advancement.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Germican]
    #11599097 -

Grab hold of the holy 40 and embrace black jesus!


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: rizingfire]
    #11599273 -

Some people sure are passionate about this topic.  I wonder why that is.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #11599319 -

Now why don't you just up and tell us. :tongue:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: DNA - Further Proof against Evolution [Re: Kasu]
    #11599425 -

Kasu said:
Quote:
Evolution does not have to be true... why do people so passionately think evolution is true?

its a great theory... but that doesnt mean it is a true description of our existance.

there are lots of holes - specifically - the evidence. now, of course, it is expected that there should not be much evidence because not many fossils survive. but that is not evidence in itself. it is just a reason that someone can be comfortable having less evidence than desired.

but in the end more evidence is needed.

creationist theories do not have to posit 6,000 year old universe. if there was a creative force in the universe, it could occur over any span of time.

you shouldnt believe in a creator, really, because there is no reason to believe so. however you also should be wary of believing in evolution. why not just accept that our origin is a fucking mystery?





Evolution is the general theory that animals change over time. How can that be refuted?? Animals don't stay the same for millions of years, they aren't unchanging. Animals, life, indeed all matter in the universe are in constant motion and eternal transition, changing from one form to another. It's nothing but metaphysics to say that such a concept could become antiqued. Science by its very nature is capable of giving, and does give, objective truth. We can trace everything back to its origins. Humans, life, matter, the universe, we can all trace them back to their origins, because human consciousness is capable of giving objective truth. These things exist independently of us, and they are given to us through sensation.

It's a fact that humans come from apes, but that isn't the main theme of evolution. Evolution is also a fact, that all life changes over time, DNA changes over time, matter changes over time. You can't deny that.  Whether there was some intelligent creator to start it all is not a fact, it's a useless abstraction, that stems from the personification of natural forces. Consciousness is not the origin of matter, matter is the origin of consciousness. Consciousness is nothing more than the supreme product of matter organized in a definite way, the final link on a chain that goes back 13.7 billion years, and even farther.




although microevolution is a solid truth which has been whitnessed over and over again, 'the theory of evolution' which most appropriately refers to the theory that life arose from non-life through many stages of microevolution, and then procesesd to develop into the range of diverse creatures inhabiting the earth today, is not a fact. It is merely the only theory anyone has ever suggested which relies only on phenomenon already documented by scientists. Of course, these phenomenon have not bee documented to occur in the way that is suggested. it is merely that we can imagine that they could.

'we can trace everything back to its origins' is utter 'bullcrap'. you should know that we cannot trace the universe to its origin because we can only map out, theoretically, all the stages of the universe since it began. We cannot glimpse its 'origin' if it even has one


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* DNA = SRM (self replicating molecule) Zero7a1 981 5 11/05/02 04:48 PM
by Zero7a1
* DNA Language Discoveries.- VERY interesting!
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 5,453 45 09/27/04 03:27 PM
by 3eyes
* DNA
( 1 2 3 all )
ergot 3,596 45 12/08/09 01:33 AM
by jflow008
* dna?
( 1 2 3 all )
mr crisper 2,455 55 01/31/03 05:06 AM
by Catalysis
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle Anonymous 1,261 8 01/31/03 09:29 PM
by Joshua
* Interesting Article On Fungal Evolution RebelSteve33 759 2 02/10/03 05:39 PM
by RebelSteve33
* The evolution of human and technology... MOTH 1,192 11 02/24/05 09:13 AM
by CJay

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,991 topic views. 0 members, 84 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.