1. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #205187 by GordonYKWong on July 6, 2008 at 6:14 pm

187. Comment #204500 by clearmind on July 5, 2008 at 4:40 am

To Gordon

We are trying to overcome our logical hurdles in evolution fairy rather than our anger. I do this with analogies in general.

Some can lose it. That is okay. Bad words are self- description of that personality. They need to think rather than swear.

logical hurdles in evolution justify the claim that Jesus is not LIKE HE MADE you. So what do you think? My artist is Leonardo Da Vinci. What is it?

What are you mutating or evolving FROM monkeys to into human beings? That is why Romania underwent my hatred.

2. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204446 by GordonYKWong on July 5, 2008 at 1:48 am

178. Comment #204386 by clearmind on July 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm

So who is designer of the earth? Is it Evolution or God? The answer is here the logical one.

And designer says, wow, I did not work.

I will believe that his fruitless attempts to answers do not go beyond the level of mine, then, you will see that it is QUITE exaggeration of what they are SLANDERING now to overcome your anger and to rest.

3. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #203915 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I think Prof. Dawkins was here in Sydney last year, as part of a author/book festival.

Can anyone confirm that?

4. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203914 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 11:31 pm

I cant understand why most asians drink alcohol... I can't drink, my body is alergic to it, 40% of asians are, it is all in our genes. Yet some of us asians still see fit to drink themself silly (after one or two beers).

OK, that will be the last racially denigrading post from me... :-)

5. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203908 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 11:09 pm

162. Comment #203902 by Goldy on July 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Swearing is Hong Kong people's past-time... they have it down to an artform almost.

They have abbreviations for different phrases (PK, DLGF, DLLM, etc) to expediate their swearing.

6. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203901 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 10:54 pm

158. Comment #203896 by clearmind on July 3, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Bad words belong to the owner. So you have got some issues. By the way you were Chinese right. Chinese people never swear, aren't they?

swear when they are another sign of losing the battle of argument.

He feels the need/urge to save their faces and pride. Sky is the only logical possibility is that possible?

If you can't beat a very smart guy, you better not to mess with his Logic!

logic sake, you are completely different? Where did gravity come from? Sun has been "Expelled," and that is okay before you do not know how to copy and paste ones are the ancestors of you.

By the standards of his mind.

WooterBot

7. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203899 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 10:50 pm

155. Comment #203888 by clearmind on July 3, 2008 at 10:36 pm

There is logic and science that all species survived because of the idea of selfish genes survive. They are not conscious structures; how come they will struggle to survive.

struggle to make LOGIC WRONG. You have and with their different fruits, finally when the evolins delude that evolution is right, this is the bedbugs' bite. Now I realize that how being overreacting against any supporter of me, bitch!)

Have you know what? You cannot hide the truth lies.

WooterBot

8. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203890 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 10:39 pm

152. Comment #203883 by clearmind on July 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Consider: the whole point of Darwinism, creationism, intelligent design, or any other theory of origins is to hypothesize the cause of the diversity of life on earth. Yet what is "chance" but merely the probabilistic character of an otherwise deterministic physical cause? The outcome of a flip of a coin is not "caused" by chance; it is caused by physical forces that determine its outcome.

Anyway, having no answer to most questions is GODDIDIT! Clearmind clears: No chances didit. Come on you are right.

WooterBot

9. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203885 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Clearmind, you are always good for a laugh, and today you do not disappoint. So I must thank you for your daily dose of incredulity and humour.

And thanks for referencing your sources this time, we do appreciate your honesty, rare as it may be.

I think Rev. Dark will be along to kick you in the bollocks soon, so I will just get out of his way.

Thanks once again.
MrGordonVerySmart

10. Crack annoyance squad wanted

Comment #203836 by GordonYKWong on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 pm

By coincidence, I am spending the entire WYD/week out of sydney, so I would not have the opportunity to annoy anybody. (At least no one in Sydney)

I am surprise no one commented on how funny and cringing the tagline of the WYD is: "The Time of Your Eternal Life"

You mean the WYD is more fun than heaven? Then what is point of heaven?

11. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203377 by GordonYKWong on July 2, 2008 at 6:28 pm

In the declaration conservative bishops... stated: "We reject the authority of those Churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."

...

David Talbot, a gay evangelical... said: "It is a shame that the Anglican Church... continues to deny the God-given reality of homosexuality and His blessing that gay Christians know in their lives."

I love it whenever theists ever have a disagreement over anything (slavery, women's rights, lobsters, etc) they always claim that God is on their side and that they will pray that the opposition will not go to hell (cos they love them so MUCH).

Next thing you hear is the sound of guns blazing in the chapels and scimitar spraying blood on streets of the middle east.

12. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203361 by GordonYKWong on July 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm

137. Comment #203297 by clearmind on July 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm

A logical analogy to the ones with high IQ

...

MrGordonverysmart: Dawkins can't help. I am very very smart. Why are you insisting that the house has a designer?
Mr Logic; There you go; another one. If you would do the same I will call another head doctor.
MrGordonverysmart: Do you think I am stupid that that house is designed? Don't you see it? You can't demonstrate that the house was designed. Do there is no designer. You are a bot.
Mr Logic: All right. You just sit here. I will demonstrate it okay. I will be right back. You just watch the house. You better not to speak. Some high school kids can hear you. Then you will be teased so badly if they hear your saying that the house evolved.
Oh man! Is this mental hospitality. Please send someone. There is another guy. He really needs help. He is a losing boat.

MrGordonverysmart: do you believe in God. All believers that there is more, as far as I know so once they start biting again.

Piranha 2: then this guy's job just biting what ever they with letter G(od). Honest with you, man? F*** off.

13. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202719 by GordonYKWong on July 1, 2008 at 9:49 pm

111. Comment #202555 by clearmind on July 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

It is like a very smart student who makes his teacher's face because he just asked his teacher where is the logic in your saying sir? How come the table you sit can come into existence by itself? and his punishment is to go a carpentry and wait for a table to come into existence by itself or a wind, chance, blindwatcmaker, selfish wood?

punishment is to lead ourselves to the level of three dimension stuff, with the how is that possible? Because our eyes WORK with 8000 lens amazingly?

14. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202686 by GordonYKWong on July 1, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I am all in favour of everyone getting along together, so I will do my best at not being a "Dogmatic" atheist.

If anyone could show me these atheistic dogmas I am to relinquish I am more than happy to oblige.

Anyone?

15. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202636 by GordonYKWong on July 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm

113. Comment #202559 by Gregg Townsend on July 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Are we quite sure that clearmind isn't a bot that creates random sentences?

I am pretty sure he is not a bot. He claims he is a hungarian teacher (bible class maybe?) and is a verment Christian Fundamentalist.

I've tried to reason with him in the past (raise your hands those of us who didn't tried), but he couldn't understand anything we are trying to communicate with him. (EDIT: note I said he couldn't understand rather than he doesn't want to understand, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here)

Now I communicate with him solely through my creation: WooterBot.

I saved a text file of all his posts and have a random text generator that churn out wooterism back out at him. And so far he is responding to it.

I think he likes the sound of his own thoughts.

16. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202633 by GordonYKWong on July 1, 2008 at 6:25 pm

107. Comment #202545 by clearmind on July 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Let's get smart.
Smart people first think later speak or write. Rest of them they speak/write/lecture then later think or worse blindly defend what they write/speak and lecture in an amazing jungle of books, interviews and lectures. It is like a very big patch in their theory since there is no logic, therefore they cannot patch but still struggle and struggle and struggle, a vain attempt to stand for the truth.

smart guys so they want to hear such a question? You see, $#$$^%$^^ worms. Because of me?

Hmm? Are you so tense?

What are you trying to discredit its rival opinion which discredited it already. But You say all these can be created by God that have permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid discussion of such "embarrassing" Islamic issues



108. Comment #202550 by clearmind on July 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I am a school teacher who silences the evolution ideas with his logic. I do not think I have an ill name. It is quite clear that my name is clear as it is my mind, CLEARMIND, that clears and cleans all illogical ideas from the science and wipes out the so-called scientific guys who are dying every day with their vain attempts that are trying to prove that we all came from the worms.

clearmind clears again; I need to be set by itself and you say is so pathetic.

Self description of athesits' MIND I am an out of nowhere claming that bricks came out by ONE OF the cells if they can't have it blessed and put a spoonful of salt in it.

17. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #202626 by GordonYKWong on July 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm

421. Comment #202330 by clearmind on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 am

Does evolution coming from worms- constitute logic? Eyes are one of the good challenges to Evolution?

eyes creation because it is either due to it's contradictory nature and the guys pops back exchanging trust and security. But something changed after ben Steins movie. Silence, contemplating, digesting and there is no God.

Sorry blind blindwatcmaker is quite busy looking for the Dna Strains. Last time it was seen to grab Darwin's beard assuming that they are DNA strains.

blindwatchmaker not paint Mona Lisa. If his were true, then, I will not last long.

Similarities between species IS NOT based on luck, chance, menotthinking or blindwatchmaker.

I wisj you can vomit some intelligence while explaing it us.

18. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #202139 by GordonYKWong on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 pm

413. Comment #202126 by clearmind on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm

I am the expert on creation. To be expert means somebody that he or she can talk about on a specific topic based on the facts and reason.

creation does not constitute logic.

It is not good. You better call Blindwatchmaker. Maybe he can be tried if only we have to ask WHY RATHER THAN trying to prove?

19. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202137 by GordonYKWong on June 30, 2008 at 11:54 pm

\/\/0043r is back. My life has meaning once more :-D

20. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202136 by GordonYKWong on June 30, 2008 at 11:51 pm

88. Comment #202130 by clearmind on June 30, 2008 at 11:40 pm

What about evolins?

evolins?

to know what it was empty. You have to let him talk. You know smart people, first they think about DNA story of two blind people are unable to see it and they still keep looking for some meat to bite. I have met lots of people since it is really so ugly.

21. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195186 by GordonYKWong on June 17, 2008 at 9:03 pm

While certain aspect of this article is encouraging (namely it confirms that McGrath's refutation is largely equine shite), I am quietly pessimistic about the premise of enlightenment reaching the masses.

Dr. Øystein Elgarøy is obviously an highly intelligent man. Yet he only saw fit to scrub himself clean of childhood indoctrination at this stage in his life. Better late than never I agree, but there are other highly intelligent humans who still prefer the baby pacifier that is religion to the wonderment of reality.

They do not engage the "bad guys", they insulate themself with doctrine and community, and they like it just this way. We cannot change that, as much as we try.

22. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191089 by GordonYKWong on June 10, 2008 at 7:42 am

Al Rawandi -

My suggestion was to withdraw our forces from Muslim regions, namely Iraq. Then we can let the blood bath begin. If we walked away from the Middle East regimes would collapse and there would be widespread fighting and death, but this is none of our concern.

I would like to see these local concerns unravel itself locally, to let the fighting come to an equilibrium so to speak, but given recent evidence, I doubt it.

Look at how the political upheaval in Zimbabwe has affected the political landscape of South Africa. Instability is cancerous.

23. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191072 by GordonYKWong on June 10, 2008 at 7:13 am

Al Rawandi -

I agree the "gut 'em" comment is a bit reactionary, I would say the only conclusion is to kill these people. There is no reasoning with them. There is no evidence you can bring to the table.

I would rather that scientist study the thought processes of these imams and formulate strategies to counter or neutralize their methods. Killing one dozen imams would mean two dozens would take their place.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190939 by GordonYKWong on June 10, 2008 at 1:05 am

qster -

With no malicious intent on my part, I would really like to know: What exactly is your point?

Are saying that Atheist are generally arrogant? Arrogant compared to whom?

Are you saying that scientist downplay imagination when it comes to science? Or when it comes to religious explanation for natural phenomenon?


I have some questions for you: Do you believe in an Intelligent Creator, a first cause? Or do you not? Or are you 50-50 on its existence?

25. Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania

Comment #190858 by GordonYKWong on June 9, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Is superstition an "Enemy of Reason"?

How about an enemy to Humanity?

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190286 by GordonYKWong on June 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

txpiper -

thanks for your response though it is brief. If you are short of time, please just engage your mind to the new revised vertebrate thought experiment.

If soma cells are "intelligent" enough to direct germ cells, it does not logically imply that an intelligent supernatural agency is needed to direct the "intelligent" soma cells to direct the germ cells.

Of course it does. Purpose and intent don't just imply or suggest the need for an organizing agent. They demand it.

And that agent can not and must not be the individual soma cells? You need to introduce an extra layer of purpose and intent?

What is the supernatural agent that controls the growth of snowflakes?


I'll try not to step into your discussion with others but your following statement here is a very telling window into the state of your thoughts:

If it seems reasonable to you that unfossilized bone and reconstitutable vascular tissue can be preserved for 68,000,000 years then by all means, enjoy your credulous expectations.

Credulous expectations? If you are in those paleontologist shoes, and you found this sample of preserved tissue, what would you do?

Jump for joy as this is rare find and now you can study the possible factors that attribute to its well preserved state, so that you can predict where other well preserved fossils can be found.

OR

Jump for joy as this perfectly invalidate 1) the age of T-Rex and 2) All method of RM dating.



Do you want to sit back and not do anymore scientific work to understand this anomaly, just because you cannot disengage your incredulity?

Edit - Speculating whether it "should" or should not happen is disingenuous. Answering "how" it happens is the stuff that gives paleontologists (and lover of science) goose bumps.

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190099 by GordonYKWong on June 8, 2008 at 11:28 am

-deleted-

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190091 by GordonYKWong on June 8, 2008 at 11:11 am

Vampire Hunter Diacanu -

I would not be so bold as to teach anyone anything on RD.net, as I do most of the learning here on this site.

I do, however, like to promote and provoke cognitive dissonance in people (myself included) and I do think creationist are a rich source of potential dissonance.

I do not care if they do or not learn anything. I do care if I learn anything from it.

Also, it is just a source of entertainment for me. :-D

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190084 by GordonYKWong on June 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

txpiper -

I'm not sure how to respond to your isolated bovines thought experiment as you had whales show up rather unexpectedly in question 3. But to be honest, I don't know for sure how many ancestral forms are involved. Cat types are cats and dog types are dogs. I don't know if either is related to hyenas.

Allow me to clear up any misleading communications on my part:

Let's clone a set of modern bovine vetebrates, take your pick of common cows, bisons, buffoloes, etc. Now put one set on one island and the other set on another.

You can play "Mother Nature" and fiddle with the two islands' habitat, climate pattern, food source, predatory source, resource competitor source. You set both island to be distinct in those attributes.

You let the two set of bovines to replicate sexually over many generations starting from today into the distant future.

As you agreed to Natural Selection to a degree, you can imagine that after a while they begin to show variations in both set that is independent of each other (despite sharing common ancestors).

Question:

1. Can you imagine that after X many generations, the two sets can now be considered as two separate species? ie. they can no longer mate due to say, significant differences, like say an antelope and a water buffolo.
   
   
2. How can you tell if they are indeed in separate species?
   
   
3. Can you imagine that after Y many generations, the two sets can now be considered as two separate vetebrate classes? ie. one set became omnivorous while the other set acquire an aquatic lifestyle. (I am not saying that modern bovines evolved into modern cetaceans. I am asking you can you imagine modern bovines evolving the ability to lead aquatic lifestyle, similar to modern cetaceans)
   
   
4. How can you tell if they are indeed in separate vetebrate classes?
   
   
5. How can you tell if they share the same ancestor as they do?

If you are uncomfortable about using bovines as an example, feel free to use any other class of vetebrate or any indivdual species as the subject of the experiment.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190071 by GordonYKWong on June 8, 2008 at 10:19 am

txpiper,

sorry for not getting back to you earlier.

You would see selection as having a concentrating effect. I can agree with that to a degree, but what is still missing in the standard paradigm is a realistic mechanism for production of the changes that might be concentrated.

Mutation is the standard paradigm that is proposed. You don't believe it is "realistic". Though, just because you deem it unrealistic does not mean it is "missing".

By all means, please propose a new paradigm that is better substantiated by more evidence, and we we would be moving forward in this discussion. Otherwise we will still be here talking in a circle.

Even if Lamarckian Evolution is true, it in no ways validate a supernatural intelligence.

I disagree. If soma cells are appealing to germ line DNA to provide adjustments so that the next generation is better adapted, this means that the information has to already be available.

Please read my original statement again, as I stand by it. If soma cells are "intelligent" enough to direct germ cells, it does not logically imply that an intelligent supernatural agency is needed to direct the "intelligent" soma cells to direct the germ cells.

Why introduce the extra layer of intelligence?

This is an extreme violation of establishment beliefs, which will probably result in the work of Steele and others being ignored.

People can be easily ignored. Published and collaborating evidence is much harder to ignore.

Intelligence of Soma cells, yes. Designer, no.

I'm pretty sure that what you are saying here would make of lot of evolutionary theorists very uncomfortable. As I've noted, they prefer not to dwell on the philosophical implications of how enzymes can identify, remove and repair erroneous nucleotide placements.

Philosophical implications? If soma cells can indeed be shown to manipulate germ cells, I am sure scientist are far more interested in how it works and the mechanism of that process, rather than exclaim "Oh well, cells should not be that intelligent, therefore something magical is pulling its strings."

Please note, I used the word "intelligence" to describe the soma cell in order to cast the the cells as the important factor in the process, rather than attributing that "intelligence" to some outside supernatural agent. And this is qualified with the proviso that if Lemarckian Evolution can be substantiated.

But what you are talking about is nothing less than intellectual deliberation and communication at the molecular level, where scientists want things to be nothing more than chemical reactions, though they obviously are more than that.

I think you are taking a massive leap of faith when you say they are obviously more than chemical reactions, just because you cannot comprehend why it should work as complex as they do. In which case you might as well claim snowflakes are intelligent without trying to figure out how they grow.

So what if one generation catches a mutations that makes some cells in a fish's throat able to absorb oxygen?

This particular mutant now have a distinct advantage in survival. As you said yourself, natural selection would then "concentrate" this trait.

What would make you believe that the next accident would build on this to the point of assembling a hyper-complex system that would distribute and regulate oxygen for the entire organism? I see the odds of this as being similar to those of lightning strikes or meteor impacts occurring in the same place often enough to build a cathedral. It isn't realistic.

Actually, not only do I see it as realistic, I see it as almost inevitable. Your cathedral analogy is poor, perhaps this video offer a better analogy to Evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkMHRDAOlA

The gradual accumulation of simple traits is a very probable cause for complexity.

The problems in my mind have to do with the expectations of continued beneficial mutations and the constraints of time.

There is no "expectations" of continuous beneficial mutations. You've said it yourself, beneficial traits are "concentrated" by Natural selection. The end result is that it seems like it is continuous, but what you do not see are the other chains of mutations that bears no fruits.

Mutant Parent: Why am I leaking from these funny skin cells? It is awfully unsightly...
Offspring: I'm hungry, I wish I have something to eat... oh look, here is something i can try to eat...

I think you are severely underestimating what all is involved.

Yes I am trivializing things a lot. Though my point here is that you do not need co-evolution between parents and children as much as you might think for the evolution of breasts. Other non-mammalian creatures feed their infants in other ways and you do not point to their need of co-evolution.

Milk is an extremely complex and specialized protein assembly.

The question you can now ask is: if milk is missing one of its component protein, is it now completely useless to mother and child? Or does it still perform some function that aid survival?

The production, storage and delivery mechanisms are also extremely refined, as are the receptive systems of nursing infants. Everything involved has to be precisely designed by proteins which conventional theory says are the result of selected DNA replications errors. These would have to have all been occurring in parallel, which is a ridiculous thought.

Why do you insist they evolved in parallel? Why not evolved in sequence with accumulation of beneficial traits? You are going to keep bringing it up and I will continue to bring up the counter point.




Finally, just to recap. You keep citing the improbabilty of the chain of events that leads to us to eyes and lungs and livers and brains and complexity, but you never cite the width and depth of the tree of life, all the species extinct or not, all the invidual organisms of those species, all the cells in those individual organism. Everyone of them are subject to mutation and some of them through sexual reproduction. All these generations of replication upon replication, "concentration of traits" upon concentration.

Does that even out the odds a bit in your mind?

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189258 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 11:05 pm

6735. Comment #189256 by qster on June 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Although interestingly such creatures like sharks/crocodiles dont appear to have 'evolved' for aeons...why is that?

Why should they need to? are their habitat threatened? food source depleted? do they have any predators to adapt to?

This is akin to asking, "if humans are evolved from apes, why are there still apes around?"

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189227 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm

txpiper,

You disagree that the mechanism of mutations of genes is expansive enough to explain the complexity of life. I think you cite that most mutations are harmful and neutral, causing the mutant to perish or simply survive but do not pass on their mutation.

But if one beneficial mutation does crop up, even in a one-in-a-trillion situation, (say cells in a fishes' throat can begin to absord oxygen vapour rather than those dissolved in water) that mutancy might give the mutant access to a new source of food and/or haven from predators etc. That mutant will not only survive, but thrive.


So regarding my favorite subjects, mammary glands :-D

Do you think that it is reasonable to believe that reptiles developed things like (boobs) in a long, tedious, coincidental series of beneficial DNA replication errors?

Yes I think it is reasonable. Cells that begins to lactate is a possible mutation that allows the mutant to thrive by providing a ready protein source to it's descendents.

This temporary developmental specialty is about independent, cooperative, integrated systems in both parent and offspring.

Parents providing a food source to the offspring in infancy is apparent in many insects, birds, fish and reptiles. What is so "independent, cooperative, integrated" in mammals that is not in others?

Considering the complexity involved, do you think it is unreasonable to doubt that such fine-tuned features in both generations developed in tandem on an accidental basis?

Mutant Parent: Why am I leaking from these funny skin cells? It is awfully unsightly...
Offspring: I'm hungry, I wish I have something to eat... oh look, here is something i can try to eat...

How is that complex? fine-tuned?

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189216 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 8:33 pm

txpiper,

secondly, you have this to say about Evolution by NS:

I have a problem with believing in a poor idea just because there isn't a more tenable one. It should still be recognized as poor.

I'm glad to hear that, since most of us (including you) would recognise the "God created all the land, sea and air creatures in one day" model as a largely poor idea.

You agreed that NS occurs to a degree, and thus it is a better explanation of diversity (if not complexity) than a creationist model.

Thirdly, I have trouble reconciling these two statements:

If the "feedback" transcription proves out, it will explain the complexity and rapidity of adaptations. I think the complexity of life is resident in the individual DNA profiles of different organisms.

AND

Someone had to design and assemble the adaptation catalog. That degree of sophistication, complexity and accuracy can't reasonably be considered accidental.

"Complexity is resident in the DNA, but someone had to design it"? Even if Lamarckian Evolution is true, it in no ways validate a supernatural intelligence. Intelligence of Soma cells, yes. Designer, no.

Fourth point, you have said that you do not agree that NS can cause "vertebrate classes changing into another":

There is impressive variation in each of these (classes of vetebrate: canines and bovines and cetaceans), but I don't think they are related to a common ancestor.

Please indulge me while I conduct a thought experiment with you.

Let's clone a set of bovine vetebrates, and put one set on one island and the other set on another.

You can play "Mother Nature" and fiddle with the two islands' habitat, climate pattern, food source, predatory source, competitor source. You set both island to be distinct in those attributes.

You let the two set of bovines to replicate sexually over many generations. As you agreed to Natural Selection to a degree, you can imagine that after a while they begin to show variations in both set that is independent of each other (despite sharing common ancestors).

Question:

1. How many generations (hypothetically) would you need before the two sets can be considered two separate species? ie. they can no longer mate due to say, genital differences, like say a deer and a water buffolo.
   
   
2. How many generations (hypothetically) would you need before the two sets can be considered two separate vetebrate class? ie. one set became omnivorous and the other set acquire an aquatic lifestyle like cetaceans?
   
   
3. How can you tell if they are indeed in separate vetebrate classes?
   
   
4. How can you tell if they share the same ancestor as they do?

Edit: clarity.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189214 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 8:22 pm

txpiper,

thanks for your considered response. As there is much to digest I will respond post by post rather than in one shot. Hope you do not mind.

I asked for many clarifications because I want to ascertain whether you are a creationist/ID proponent or a hyper evolution skeptic, as I see a distinction between the two.

Would you, based on your answers to my questions, label yourself as a creationist of the Christian flavour?

First thing first, you have this to say about Natural Selection:

Things can only be selected out of the picture. If the full authority of selection is applied to a deck of cards, you could remove everything from 7's on down. That wouldn't turn all the face cards into superheroes. Selection diminishes. It does not enhance or improve.

Oh dear, I recommend you reconsider this anlogy as the other commenters would take you to task with this.

It does not "enhance or improve" because now you have half a deck of cards.

If on the other hand, the cards can replicate (either sexually or asexually), the descendents will now carry the charateristics of their parents (fitness). With no limit on the population size i.e. they are not bound to a 52 cards scenario, you quickly see how they can be "enhance or improve" exponentially.

35. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189203 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Pathfinder, you've said:

24. Comment #189176 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm

My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps". That means I am proceeding from a position of RELATIVE unknowability. Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD. Just as I distrust those on "my side" who insist THERE IS A GOD.

My question to you is quite silly but I still think it is worth asking.

Given that there is so much beauty in this world, so much mysteries in life, so many awe inducing grandeur, from our functioning brain and body, our environment, our universe... how probable do you think is the existence of this "God of the gaps"? 90-80%? 50%? 20-10%?

I know it is meaningless to apply something as trivial as percentages to something that could be infinite. But I am not asking for a proof, but a gut-feeling.

To be fair to you, I will give my answer to that question if you ask me the same question.

36. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #189198 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Welcome back steve, and do drop by often. You mentioned that you have just concluded a long conversation with a theologist. Are you referring to the blog "A Dialogue Between a Christian and an Atheist"? That blog has not been updated in ages.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188947 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

6704. Comment #188849 by txpiper on June 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

There isn't any demonstrable evidence for a random sequence of DNA replication errors which transformed gills into lungs, fins into limbs, scales into skin or any of the myriad other things necessary to get from this animal to a tetrapod.

Not to be picky but gills are not lungs and scales are not skin. They can be independently evolved, not evolved from one into another.

With fins and limbs, you can look into fossil record for their evolution. I wikied "Fishapod" to see Tetrapodomorpha.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188922 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 2:13 am

6689. Comment #188284 by txpiper on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm

What evidence, if any, could convince you that the process of Natural Selection can be responsible for some "vertebrate classes changing into another"?

That's actually not an easy question to answer. As I see it, there aren't that many categories of evidence that are used to support that idea.

I just want to clarify, do you consider Canines as a distinct vertebrate class from say Bovines? What about Canines and Cetaceans, are they distinct?

Or do you mean the proper scientific classification of mammals and reptiles and insects, etc., as different vetebrate classes?

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188912 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

6689. Comment #188284 by txpiper on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Mutations do occur and natural selection really happens. But I don't think these work the way conventional evolutionary theory says that they do.

In order for us (all of us) to talk on the same page, can I confirm with you about what you have been saying to me in this thread?

I gather that:

• You agree that mutations occurs;
  
• You disagree that the mechanism of mutations of genes is expansive enough to explain the complexity of life (You cite its improbability);
  
• Larmarckian Evolution is a possible candidate to explain the complexity of life;
  
  
• You agree that natural selection occurs;
  
• You disagree natural selection alone can explain how "some vertebrate classes changing into another";
  
• Larmarckian Evolution is a possible candidate to explain how "some vertebrate classes changing into another"?
  
  
• Thus far, you do not believe that there is a supernatural explanation to either issues.
  

Please feel free to confirm or to correct any of my miscomprehensions. Thanks.

On a side note, you've stated:

First, your theory is yours to prove, not mine to disprove.

As far as I understand it and do correct me if I am wrong, theories are for all of us to disprove, not proved (Mathematic and Logic is where the formal proofs come in). Only those hypothesis that stand solid against the heat of scientific scrutiny and mounting evidence can it be deem worthy enough of being a scientific theory.

And evolution skeptics have done their part to try to disprove Darwin's original theory, but there it stands, beside all of the new evidence, largely intact after 150 years. By all means, it doesn't mean a bright spark in the future cannot turn the theory on it's head (a-la Einstein with gravity), but Natural Selection is still the best model we have up till now.

40. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188900 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 1:10 am

Hi ACS,

Do you work for this project? If you do that is very cooool.

Please excuse my ignorance here, but do you know why those rare citrate mutants in the 12 test batch after generation 33,000 does not thrive in the same environment, whereas the super citrate eaters do thrive?

Shouldn't the rare citrate eating mutants have a selective advantage over the normal non-citrate eaters?

Thanks,

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187783 by GordonYKWong on June 2, 2008 at 4:28 pm

6682. Comment #187752 by Diacanu on June 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm

...zombies ARE scientifically impossible

I dunno about that. How long must your heart stop beating before CPR brings you back to life before you can be considered a member of the living dead?

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187356 by GordonYKWong on June 2, 2008 at 3:18 am

6631. Comment #186836 by txpiper on May 31, 2008 at 11:39 am

I think perhaps now might be the time for you to tell us whether you believe that evolution is an invented phenomenon, or just a process that can explain one or two things in the natural world but not everything.

Adaptation, even extreme adaptation, really happens. It is easily observable. But the most dramatic examples of adaptation are still almost completely confined to species. The concept does not transfer to one vertebrate class changing into another. That idea is fantasy in my view.

What evidence, if any, could convince you that the process of Natural Selection can be responsible for some "vertebrate classes changing into another"?

6644. Comment #187173 by txpiper on June 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The RT Steele and others are researching is a different thing altogether. It is soma cells (those of the organism which will not be involved in reproduction) communicating information directly back to the DNA of the germ (reproductive) cells of a parent. The DNA of those cells reacts to this information so that the offspring are better prepared to contend with the environment than the parent was. To cut to the chase, it is an altogether Lamarckian process.

It (sic) this is what happens, which appears preliminarily to be the case, it completely dismantles conventional ideas about accidental mutations and all the goofy ideas about selection. It also presents a profound philosophical complication for evolution.

*My emphasis

I am sure what you mean is that a Lamarckian process should (partially or fully) replace notions of mutation, sexual reproduction, etc. as a source of genetic diversity and complexity.

But surely a Lamarckian system is still heavily dependent on "goofy" Natural Selection to drive it.

Is that what you mean?

43. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #187295 by GordonYKWong on June 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm

382. Comment #186594 by clearmind on May 30, 2008 at 7:39 pm

To post here is my job BUT WITH NOT A GUN OVER my head but LOGIC IN MIND. i CAN'T ACCEPT ILLOGICAL AND FUNNY IDEAS FLOATING AROUND THE EARTH.

guy's job just biting what ever they think they are too perfect to not be confusing.

(And your answer to how we got a habit to reveal the language of numbers. Denial is a civilized manner for civilized societies.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186191 by GordonYKWong on May 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm

It is decidedly more powerful because it displaces the random and accidental aspects of mutations in the current paradigm. If information is reverse transcribed from soma to germ line, this is breaching "Weismann's Barrier", which is a serious biological (and philosophical) departure from conventional theory.

Then I do wish Prof. Steele success in furthering his research.

I take it that you are opened to naturalistic explanation to diversity. In which case, I recant my earlier comparison between you and wooter. My apologies.

I would however, maintain that the things you mention are not capable of producing millions of plant and animal species, or even a particularly specialized feature in any one of those.

Just curious txpiper, is that personal incredulity or an educated hunch? To me you seem well versed in the field (when compared to a lay person like me).

45. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #185900 by GordonYKWong on May 29, 2008 at 2:50 am

Not only do people confuse an idiot from a country to be representative of the entire citizendry, I think people generally confuse governments and leaders with it's populace as well.

• Chinese goverment is awful in their treatment of the tibetans, therefore "karmic" forces send them an earthquake to settle the balance with their citizens.
  
  
• The American people voted in the government that bombs our brethens, so we will fly some planes into their civilian targets.
  
  
• Their French president opposes our war, so we will rename all our fried potatoes to "Freedom Fries" and label them all to be "Surrender Monkies"

I mean what does it mean to hold a passport in a particular country anyway. Nowadays, people hold multiple passports. If you hold both an American and French passport are you suppose to hate yourself? Twice?

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185867 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm

6580. Comment #185857 by txpiper on May 28, 2008 at 9:15 pm

I think Edward Steele's work on soma-to-germ line reverse transcription is quite interesting. There is a lot of available reading on this available on the net. Basically it is a much more palatable mechanism than the current idea which is "waiting on that lucky mutation".

I had a quick search and glance at Prof Ed Steele's research. And I agree with you it does, at first glance, sounds interesting. (Not that I am competent to judge his work since I am not a biologist/immunologist)

At the same time, soma to germline reverse transcription doesn't attempt to refute to Evolution by Natural Selection. It does attempt change the basic paradigm of evolution and how much role Natural Selection plays in it.

Steele does not invoke any supernatural agency in this evolution process.

And as a theory I do not see how it is a more powerful model than Natural Selection. More like an addendum than a replacement.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185853 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 8:42 pm

6577. Comment #185847 by txpiper on May 28, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Evolution by natural selection is currently our most powerful explanatory model for what we observe of life's diversity over time. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think, as I have explained several times here, that selection has been granted a personality, anthropomorphed, if you will. I think this has happened incrementally over time out of necessity, perhaps unconsciously to some degree.

Which means, other than "Evolution by Natural Selection", you have a different model, a far more superior model, (edit) one that explains more phenomenons with less explanatory effort. (/edit)

Please share...

48. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #185507 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 1:39 am

379. Comment #185504 by clearmind on May 28, 2008 at 1:26 am
For the sake of semantics, how do relate lie, cheat and twist to being sarcastic? These are the traits and merits of Evolution not creation?

So you are Chinese?

yes otherwise, of course, answer is no. NEXT To everybody

Please define the evolution is not good for new evolution.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #185497 by GordonYKWong on May 28, 2008 at 12:33 am

congratulations txpiper, you sound like wooter with the ability to use blockquotes. A good step up.

50. What is science for?

Comment #185476 by GordonYKWong on May 27, 2008 at 10:19 pm

162. Comment #185416 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Good one Mr. Wong!

Thanks Frankus, but I don't think I have express myself clearly enough. Damn Wooter and his seductive twisting of the English language and LOGIC...