Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Lloyd Pye


txviper

Recommended Posts

daFatman has elected to sing. Unsourced,plagerized materials are not wanted here at exChristian dot net. This post parsed. txviper is free to post a LINK to the source

Any further posting of unsourced or uncredited *full works* (other than acedemic mentions allowed by Fair Use) will be nuked on sight, poster warned.

 

k, daFatman, Board Singing (poorly) Sanitary Disposal Engineer, L.

 

I don't agree with a lot of Lloyds' theories or conclusions. He is not a Christian or a Creationist. And he apparently is unaware of, or just discounts the prophetic and doctrinal things which validate the Bible. But in a world being configured for the antichrist, it is a pleasure to read the thoughts of a perceptive and brilliant mind.

 

The notation on human head hair is most intriguing, as if it were designed just to make it possible for Nazarites to keep their vows.

 

A little long but very interesting.

 

 

 

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

 

 

THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT

 

by Lloyd Pye

 

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein se

 

 

Clipped one huge honking cut and pasted plagerized post kL

 

convictions. Don’t expect it of anyone over forty, possibly even thirty. But somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.

 

The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not suiting up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? You're an idiot. Do you have any idea who Lloyd Pye is? He's a unreputable crackpot.

 

Here's a bit of info about Pye from the Talk.Origins archives...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov99.html

Lloyd's ideas are derived from those of Zecharia Sitchin. Humans are the result of genetic tinkering by aliens who needed us for slaves several hundred thousand years ago. You can read all about it in his books.

 

Be warned, however. Lloyd's web page start off with a long list of statements which are just not true, such as the old myth that we only use 10% of our brains (off-site.)

That alone is probably reason enough to not place any credence in Lloyd Pye's writings. If he doesn't even take the care to check his facts about how the brain works, then I sincerely doubt that he's spent much time at all reading scientific publications written by biologists. Let me stress for you that this is a dumb error on the part of someone that you dared to refer to as a "perceptive and brilliant mind". Perceptive my ass!

 

Here are some asinine exchanges from Mr. Pye's essay. I'm not even going to begin to tackle all of it, because it's just too long and stupid. Anyway...

 

How would you do that?

 

Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross.

 

If it’s impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in the first place?

Is he actually challenging a scientist to substantiate diversification via isolation? Do you not realize how dumb this is? There is evidence of diversification in modern species that are interfertile. Mules. Ligers. Camel-llama hybrids. These are clearly examples of isolated groups that diversified differently from one another.

 

As far as how isolation/separation occurs, any real proponent of evolution could have answered this quite easily. First of all, you don't always necessarily need absolutely isolation that is impossible to cross. You just need a considerable distance. If you have two groups of the same species that are so far apart that they don't even encounter each other anymore, then you'll get the same sort of isolation effect.

 

Species spread, but they don't wander. Birds are a good example of this. With the gift of flight, birds have the ability to go anywhere, but they stay in close-knit communities, which means that they're not wandering. Nonetheless bird communities spread. They spread because they need room to exist. It's when you have communities spread that they lose touch with each other, and all of a sudden, you have disassociated groups diversifying.

 

However, sometimes isolation occurs when different members of the same species are able to cross a barrier that others can't. Say there's a hole in a chasm, and only the smaller members of the species can cross, leaving the larger members behind. Sometimes rare geological features, such as land bridges and river icing allow animals to cross from one region to another and then get trapped.

 

I mean, there are so many answers to this inquiry, and Lloyd doesn't let his "evolutionist" answer. He's setting him up for a fall. That's dishonest!

 

I mean, honestly! Who is he talking to? Who is giving these responses? Where are the references?

 

This is ridiculous!

 

Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all opponents with that brush because so much of Creationist dogma is absurd.
Oh trust me, we're well aware of other opponents of evolution, like Mr. Pye. I think Mr. Pye might be throwing a little bit of a hissy fit, because unlike the apologists, his personal brand of stupidity doesn't have the political weight of creationism. It's true that it would be a false dichotomy to assume that everyone who is anti-evolution is pro-Biblical Creation. The thing is, I can't think of a single reputable proponent of evolution who makes that assumption. And I'd bet my money on it that Lloyd Pye can't either.

 

Now, I'd like to point out how stupid some of these labels are. Let's start with "Darwinist". I am not a Darwinist. I am also not a Neutonian, Einsteinist, Dawkinsist, or DiVincist. I don't worship scientists. I accept the principles of science, under which each scientist is equally refutable, and none are held in dogmatic regard. The term "Darwinist" is strawman and is thus inappropriate.

 

I am also not an "evolutionist". Calling me an evolutionist would be like calling me a "gravityist" or a "heliocentrist". I am not committed to these propositions. I do, however, accept them, because that is the revealed reality of the world around me. I am pro-reality.

 

Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of “transitional species” in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform into other, “higher” species. So right out of the chute the theory of evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species apparent in the fossil record.
I don't give two shits about Darwin. Darwin is dead. He died in the 19th Century. This is the 21st Century. Charles Darwin has historical significance for his observation of morphological commonalities, but he knew nothing of genetics. Bringing up Darwin in a modern discussion of biology is like bringing up Neuton in a modern discussion about physics. These are historical figures that, at one time, had broken ground in their selected fields, but they bear no relevence in a modern scientific discussion.

 

Furthermore, there are plenty of transitional fossils. In fact, all fossils are transitional. There are shared morphological similarities between all vertibrates. There is a clear lineage of decent to be found in the fossil record. The old "missing link" canard is old-hat rubbish!

 

Besides, in terms of evidence for evolution, genetics is far more important and persuasive than simply digging up a fossil and comparing it to another fossil. I noticed that you had no response to the evidence of endogenous retroviruses. Predictably, you ran away.

 

Now that I'm done picking apart select portions of Lloyd Pye's essay, let's move onto some of the stupid things that you said...

 

I don't agree with a lot of Lloyds' theories or conclusions. He is not a Christian or a Creationist. And he apparently is unaware of, or just discounts the prophetic and doctrinal things which validate the Bible.
Oh reeeeeaaaaaally...

 

I defy you to start a new topic in, say, the Lion's Den or Colosseum, so you can substantiate some of these so-called prophetic validations. Grab your favorite prophecy and present it to us. Show us what you got.

 

Rest assured, you will be torn to shreds. Not only will be kick the shit out of any prophecy you have, but I will personally do the honors of demonstrating to you why it is impossible for Christianity to be true.

 

Reap the whirlwind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

txviper-

 

Please provide evidence and references for your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jebus, that Pye fellow is a dishonest twit. Every feature he mentions is either "significantly different" or "radically altered" or "completely redesigned" from apes to humans, except that is all BS. It is the morphological similiarities that classify us as primates in the first place.

 

And WTF is with the chromosome thing? Is he writing to a lay-audience? Does he think we don't know about the obvious fusion event that created human chromosome 2?

 

What a lying sack of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be a lying sack of shit and a complete crackpot, but he's got "a perceptive and brilliant mind."

 

 

 

This speaks volumes about TX...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

txviper-

 

Please provide evidence and references for your claims.

 

Zach,

 

There has got to be a way to automate this request of yours so that

all you have to do is click a single button and the system will post

it for you.

 

:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

txviper...

 

I'll add in a stringent request that you externally link TO this long of a bullshit post.

 

Folks inclined to go to such a site can go to their hearts content and graze the sectarian offerings.

 

Prefer that you not drag this all the way here when the material presented is a obvious cut 'n paste from someone elses webspace.

 

Plagerizing and stealing materials is not wanted, appreciated or needed here at Ex Christian dot net.

 

I will give you twelve hours from my post, done at 1840 PDT hours to reference and notate, give the URL, or otherwise assign ownership/authorship credits, ot post will be nuked, and I'll slap your happyass with a Strike..

 

k, lacking patience for fools tonight, L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zach,

 

There has got to be a way to automate this request of yours so that

all you have to do is click a single button and the system will post

it for you.

 

:HaHa:

In theory, it could be done. I mean, you've already got forum members that are identified as apologists. It would only be a matter of automating a message to pop up after every apologist post that says, "Substantiate your claims! NOW!!! SCHNELL!!!".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the site.

 

http://www.lloydpye.com/

 

There is no direct link to the piece I copied and pasted, which is why I did so. It can be found in the "essays" section, "The Literal Creation of Mankind".

 

Plagiarism is deliberately taking credit for what someone else has written.

 

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

 

Zach,

 

"Please provide evidence and references for your claims."

 

Well, no Zach I will not and for the following reasons:

 

1) I conceded that yours was a good argument. However, it is also like archaeopterix or the unimpressive examples of beneficial mutations evolutionists can provide. They are hardly conclusive and give rise to other questions. I understand why some want to make parade floats out of them, but in the list of issues concerning millions of plant and animal species mutating their way from single-celled organisms to what they are now, retrovirus anomalies are inconsequential details.

 

 

2) I am not a biologist and do not wish to become one. I have limited time to research technical things such as this and am not qualified to evaluate information that is either agreeable or contrary to your belief.

 

 

3) From what little I've have read about the subject, there is still a lot that is not understood about pseudogenes, retroviruses, and mutations being concentrated at hot spots. Your conclusion could be less tenable as more research is done.

 

 

4) There is a problem of objectivity in the research community that is related to preconception. Often, the object of the game is to substantiate evolutionary theory rather than discover the truth. This mindset can cause technical reports to be biased presentations. To illustrate, you mentioned, in regards to missense mutations, that:

 

"Before the mutation:

The red car drives down the street.

After the mutation:

The blue car drives down the street."

 

But you didn't mention the databases of diseases and other undesirable results that are the result of such mutations. I would assume that you are at least as objective and forthcoming as any evolutionary researcher. That being the case, it is hard to trust that what is written, peer-reviewed and published, is not either oversimplified or negligent in presenting a candid and complete representation of the facts.

 

 

5) I don't really detect that yours is a pursuit of truth. You wrote in the thread about abiogenesis that:

 

"I'd second MrSpooky on this one, and also recommend the first few chapters of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene."

 

In his post MrSpooky had reviewed the results of the Miller experiment. Surely you, as a biologist, comprehend the problems associated with the results of that experiment. But you didn't mention them.

 

You did however, send your readers to a zoologist who has a truth problem as well as a pronounced paranoia concerning creationists.

 

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/...richard_daw.php

 

 

6)You have a certain slipperyness about this abiogenesis issue. You obviously (have no other choice but to) believe in it, but you want to detach it from evolutionary thought when asked to defend or even speculate about it.

 

If you would like to start from a more surefooted position, how about if I concede the DNA was impossibly, but miraculously, formed by natural processes? That skips protein assembly and replication, RNA world theory and miles of other phenomena. You are way out in front of abiogenesis.

 

So all you have to do is illustrate how to get DNA base pairs from about 4 million in E-coli cell up to about 3 billion in one of ours.

 

I would think that is more than fair. After all, you have labs where you can control pressure, temperature and quality of your input chemicals. You can also regulate voltage, amperage, light frequency and intensity and whatever else you might need as stimulus in forming those nucleotides. Most importantly, you will have your intellect. This will be a huge advantage as you will not be at the mercy of random chance. The only thing you will have to be cautious about will be any type of active coercion that would be tantmount to "designing".

 

Please show your lab work.

 

 

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

 

Mr.Neil,

 

I will consider your challenge. The problem for me is time. I would be going into such an undertaking knowing that all you have to do is add a few clicks to your already amazing regard for cooincidence. I'm not sure I can or even want to spend that much time here. We'll see.

 

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to tackle the botany problem Mr. Pye called attention to. Pointing out that he's a kook doesn't really cancel things like that out does it? The human hair phenomena are also intriguing. Any theories as to how accidental copy errors achieved results like that?

 

"all fossils are transitional"

 

No, they are not. It is probably time to shift the focus to geology and the fossil record.

 

 

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

 

 

crazy-tiger,

 

Let's assume your estimation of the effectiveness of mutations is correct. I have a couple of questions for you.

 

1) How would congruous retrovirus indications in humans and chimps last for the 6 million years since the two diverged from the supposed common ancestor? Also, why would not natural selection have eliminated the 90+% of "junk DNA" still in the genome?

 

2) "cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today. In fact, most fossil bacteria can almost be considered related to modern bacteria. Bacteria are the most unchanged organisms alive today, even though they are the oldest."

 

http://wwwutmsi.zo.utexas.edu/people/staff...cTimeline5E.doc

 

If mutations are as effective as you have "proved" why are the most easy to evolve organisms unchanged in a thousand million years?

 

Also, how have crocodiles avoided any perceivable mutations for 150 million years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...he apparently is unaware of, or just discounts the prophetic and doctrinal things which validate the Bible.

 

Umm, no. One can't discount or be unaware of something that doesn't exist. :fdevil:

 

The notation on human head hair is most intriguing, as if it were designed just to make it possible for Nazarites to keep their vows.

 

:lmao:

 

somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.

 

:lmao::funny::lmao:

 

Hilarious fundie brat! Simply hilarious! Keep up the comedy! Babble nonsense for da lawd! Pleeeeease more of that idiocy! :beg::pureevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to tackle the botany problem Mr. Pye called attention to. Pointing out that he's a kook doesn't really cancel things like that out does it? The human hair phenomena are also intriguing. Any theories as to how accidental copy errors achieved results like that?
Well I didn't just point out that he was a kook. I accused him of being irresponsible in his methodology, and then I provided a few examples using the cut-and-paste job that you provided. Pye apparently scoffed at the notion of diversification by isolation, even when anyone could present real-world examples of species that exist due to just such a phenomenon.

 

The guy knows nothing about evolution. Your source is an idiot, and you're a fool if you continue to use his arguments.

 

Perhaps you can explain what the problem is with botony or hair. I wasn't aware of any specific problem. Simply saying that there is a problem isn't going to cut it here, viper. Your bluffs are meaningless.

 

"all fossils are transitional"

 

No, they are not.

Yes they are. Don't just contradict me just for the sake of contradicting me!

 

In biology, there is no zenith in evolution. All forms in biology are just transitions. They are adapted to the environment which exists now. But the environment will eventually change! That's the entire point, which is why adaptation occurs. So yes, all forms in biology are transitional. You're going to have to do better than "Nuh-uh!".

 

It is probably time to shift the focus to geology and the fossil record.
Why? Because you can't deal with the evidence of endogenous retroviruses? I brought them up again, and again you fail to address them. You're not going to run away from the molecular evidence of ancestory. Eventually, you will be backed into a corner, and you will be forced to answer to the evidence that you continue to avoid.

 

Furthermore, even if we do shift the topic to geology, you will be destroyed, because the evidence is not on your side. I know a geologist who lives near the Grand Canyon, and I can guaruntee that you're in for a world of hurt if you go there. And I'm not bluffing. You can ask anyone here.

 

Question: Have you ever heard of an angular unconformity? Google search it. I challenge you to explain how one is formed in the creationist model. And when you do, I'll come back and explain why you're wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with a lot of Lloyds' theories or conclusions. He is not a Christian or a Creationist. And he apparently is unaware of, or just discounts the prophetic and doctrinal things which validate the Bible. But in a world being configured for the antichrist, it is a pleasure to read the thoughts of a perceptive and brilliant mind.

 

This is fun. What prophetic or doctrinal things validate the Bible? What's your idea of validation?

 

How is the world being configured for the Antichrist? Are you one of those Pat Robertson/Beasts rising out of the ocean/believing in Illuminati conspiracy theories nuts? OK, I'll bite. Explain how the Cabal is planning to install the Antichrist as the great leader of Europe. :HappyCry:

 

 

The notation on human head hair is most intriguing, as if it were designed just to make it possible for Nazarites to keep their vows.

 

 

Have you ever noticed an interesting coincidence? Isn't it weird how much "Nazarite" sounds like "Nazi rite"? Or how "Nazarene" sounds like "Nazi-rene"? Just a coincidence.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crazy-tiger,

 

Let's assume your estimation of the effectiveness of mutations is correct. I have a couple of questions for you.

 

1) How would congruous retrovirus indications in humans and chimps last for the 6 million years since the two diverged from the supposed common ancestor? Also, why would not natural selection have eliminated the 90+% of "junk DNA" still in the genome?

"congruous" retrovirus indications? Why don't you use their proper name... Endogenous Retroviruses? (hey Neil... he's trying to get me to answer your challenge)

The simple answer - there is no selection pressure to remove them. Likewise "junk DNA". (which most of it isn't)

 

I'd give you a more detailed answer, but there's no point at the moment... you seem to be having trouble understanding the simplest of concepts regarding evolution so getting more detailed will just go even further over your head.

2) "cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today. In fact, most fossil bacteria can almost be considered related to modern bacteria. Bacteria are the most unchanged organisms alive today, even though they are the oldest."

 

http://wwwutmsi.zo.utexas.edu/people/staff...cTimeline5E.doc

 

If mutations are as effective as you have "proved" why are the most easy to evolve organisms unchanged in a thousand million years?

Again, simple answer... since the Bacterial environment is the most unchanged, the Bacteria haven't had to change much to survive.

Slightly more complicated, since I think you might be able to cope with this... They are aquatic (live in water) and that environment is unchanged for a long, long time.

Also, how have crocodiles avoided any perceivable mutations for 150 million years?

Hah! They've avoided any perceivable mutations have they?

No reported fossils of ancient crocodiles were known until Paul Sereno found the fossilized remains of a crocodile jaw in the Sahara. First, they thought it belonged to a dinosaur but the jaw was 110 million years old, about 20 million years before large predatory dinosaurs ruled the Earth. After using a computer to reconstruct the organism they discovered that the jaw belonged to a massive crocodile they named Sarcosuchus. Although not much study was done on this animal, it is still believed to be one of the first ancestors to modern day crocodiles and alligators. Sarcosuchus measured about 12 meters (40 feet) long and weighted as much as 10 metric tons. Its jaws alone were 1.8 meters (6 feet) tall.

That is one hell of a perceivable mutation there...

 

 

Why do I get the idea that you didn't do any research on these questions at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) How would congruous retrovirus indications in humans and chimps last for the 6 million years since the two diverged from the supposed common ancestor? Also, why would not natural selection have eliminated the 90+% of "junk DNA" still in the genome?
"congruous" retrovirus indications? Why don't you use their proper name... Endogenous Retroviruses? (hey Neil... he's trying to get me to answer your challenge)
Hey, that's not fair, viper! Why are you shifting my answer to someone else and then labeling it differently? Were you hoping I wouldn't see it?

 

CT tackled the latter question, so I'll tackle the former. Endogenous retroviruses are evidence of ancestory, because they are records of very specific infections. Basically, you have nearly identical viral insertions appearing in the same places in both chimps and humans. The typical creationist response to this is to say that it's evidence of common infection. This is no good, however, because of the nature of endogenous retroviruses. The viruses themselves mutate way too rapidly to leave such recognizably similar remnants in two different species, and for two infections to occupy the exact same spot in the genome of two different hosts is completely unheard-of! In other words, you lose.

 

To steal a line from Zach, you would get a plane from a tornado in a junk yard before you'd ever get the nearly identical retroviral insertions in the same place in the genomes in two different species.

 

Of course, don't bother annoying us with that analogy, either. The plane in a junkyard is a strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in a world being configured for the antichrist, it is a pleasure to read the thoughts of a perceptive and brilliant mind.

 

Which antichrist? There have been so many of them already. Let's see, JK Rowling, the creators of Superman (yes, I have heard it said that Superman is the antichrist, even though he is a FICTIONAL character ,and the Superman mythos was based off of Judaism & not Christianity), anyone famous and gay, anyone famous and liberal, anyone famous and not a Christian, anyone famous who the church doesn't like regardless of whether they are Christian or not, the current Pope, the last Pope, other popes, the Dalai Lama, leaders of other religions...

 

So which antichrist is it that the world is being readied for, hmmm?

 

Or has the sky stopped falling now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stick a fork in txviper? I think he's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr.Neil,

 

Concerning Lloyd Pye, you mentioned that:

 

“Your source is an idiot, and you're a fool if you continue to use his arguments”

 

Mr. Pye is not really what I would call a source, nor would I consider him an idiot. I read all kinds of stuff by all kinds of writers and theorists. I respect well formulated questions and Pye asks some good ones.

 

”Perhaps you can explain what the problem is with botony or hair. I wasn't aware of any specific problem.”

 

Well, the point of the development of crops is a good one. The problem as Pye frames it is about development. Most all of the food crops are supposedly descenced from wild types. But that is not an easy thing to account for. There are very serious time and method problems. The piece I posted develops the “problem” quite well. To quote him again (brackets mine):

 

“Of course, [botanical] “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations [of the cellular chemistry of food crops by Neolithic humans] of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

 

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame….”

 

Lloyd is dead on in this assertion. To illustrate:

 

“In contrast, the staple crop of Mesoamerica, corn evolved from teosinte, an ancestor that looks nothing like it, and is not a good food, and took several thousand years of selective breeding to transform into corn – a slow and arduous process compared to the easy domestication of the many FC [Fertile Crescent] crops.”

 

http://www.bu.edu/av/core/cc106/CC106_2005...s%20evolve'

 

The instructor, in this fly-by, has reiterated Pye’s observation perfectly. Surely you can see what is wrong with this summary. I wonder how many hands went up to call this scenario into question? The unfortunate answer is, probably none.

 

On the hair, I’ll requote Mr.Pye;

 

“Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.” ”

 

How would accidental DNA copy errors account for hair on the human scalp losing the stop-growth mechanism that regulates all other hair on all other species? Why is this most peculiar feature found in no other primates, but is completely common to every “racial” group in humans?

 

“ "all fossils are transitional"

No, they are not.

Yes they are. Don't just contradict me just for the sake of contradicting me!”

 

Type “all fossils are transitional” into the Talk.Origins search engine. Only novices in the C/E debate use this phrase. A stronger position for you will be to become familiar with the contenders on the short and disputable transitional fossil list. What are found in the strata are very rarely anything but the remains of something already found. The fossil record just does not show gradualism. You can argue over the myriad details and interpretations, but there are too many paleo-people who have admitted that the record is disappointing.

 

”In biology, there is no zenith in evolution.”

 

There are zeniths in Creation. The zeniths are reading this.

 

 

“ “It is probably time to shift the focus to geology and the fossil record.”

Why? Because you can't deal with the evidence of endogenous retroviruses? I brought them up again, and again you fail to address them.”

 

I have politely conceded all that I intend to about ERV’s. I am sick of it.

 

“You're not going to run away from the molecular evidence of ancestory”

 

You really should call it genetic or micro-biological. And don’t get too spooled up over one modestly tenable argument. You have billions of details to account for with nothing more than mutations. Like getting from the common ancestor of hippos and sperm whales to each of them. How many copy errors and selections do you suppose were involved in those?

 

“Furthermore, even if we do shift the topic to geology, you will be destroyed, because the evidence is not on your side. I know a geologist who lives near the Grand Canyon, and I can guaruntee that you're in for a world of hurt if you go there. And I'm not bluffing. You can ask anyone here.”

 

Well then I will just be destroyed. Have your guy screw on a helmet. I have some questions I always enjoy posing to geologists.

 

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

 

Penny,

 

“This is fun. What prophetic or doctrinal things validate the Bible? What's your idea of validation?”

 

This is way too broad to address, especially right now when I barely have time to read much less compose anything. Consider it on hold for a while.

 

”How is the world being configured for the Antichrist?”

 

I oversimplified that statement. There are several different fronts involved.

 

“Are you one of those Pat Robertson/Beasts rising out of the ocean/believing in Illuminati conspiracy theories nuts? OK, I'll bite. Explain how the Cabal is planning to install the Antichrist as the great leader of Europe.”

 

I’m not really much of a conspiracy theorist so the answer would be basically no.

 

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

 

c-t,

 

"why would not natural selection have eliminated the 90+% of "junk DNA" still in the genome?

”Likewise "junk DNA". (which most of it isn't)”

 

90+% should easily qualify as most.

 

”you seem to be having trouble understanding the simplest of concepts regarding evolution so getting more detailed will just go even further over your head”

 

Actually, I think I do understand evolutionary basics. But I puzzled by your application of percentiles and statistical impossibilities.

 

”If mutations are as effective as you have "proved" why are the most easy to evolve organisms unchanged in a thousand million years?

“Again, simple answer... since the Bacterial environment is the most unchanged the Bacteria haven't had to change much to survive” "

 

How would you accurately appraise their environment for a billion years?

 

So, on one hand you are contending that these accidental, random copy errors are responsible for getting single-cell organisms all the way to T-Rex, sea lions, lobsters, condors and asparagus.

 

But on the other hand, bacteria, which can reproduce in minutes and are the most likely organisms to mutate, show no change in a billion years. The supposed common ancestor to humans and chimps is nowhere in sight, but the bacteria are still there, the same as they were in the “pre-cambrian” era.

 

I guess you’re right. Some evolutionary rationales just elude me.

 

“Also, how have crocodiles avoided any perceivable mutations for 150 million years?

“Hah! They've avoided any perceivable mutations have they?” "

"Sarcosuchus measured about 12 meters (40 feet) long and weighted as much as 10 metric tons. Its jaws alone were 1.8 meters (6 feet) tall.

“That is one hell of a perceivable mutation there...”

 

Its jaws alone were 1.8 meters long, rather than tall. And also:

 

“….Sarcosuchus was not from the same branch of the reptile family tree that gave rise to modern crocodilians”

 

http://members.aol.com/robinjoan3/suprcroc/suprcroc.htm

 

The animal you mentioned, along with giant mammals are called megafauna. They are extremely interesting and are easily accommodated by creation theory. The pre-flood earth was tropical to the poles and the atmosphere had higher oxygen and CO2 levels. (There are interesting theories about gravity being less pronounced.) Radically different environment, very different animals. Giant bison. sloths, and rhinos are problematic for evolution Before you invoke selection pressure, remember that you have to have accidental, random DNA copy errors before anything can be selected.

 

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Megafauna

 

 

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

 

 

Amethyst,

 

“Which antichrist? There have been so many of them already…..

So which antichrist is it that the world is being readied for, hmmm?”

 

Every guess is an error. The Bible indicates when antichrist will be revealed and we are not there yet. We know that he will be very impressive. There is a phenomena that can overtake entire nations when things are very bad whereby people will accept any person or ideology as long as they promise to restore stability. The desperate state of things will no doubt precede ac taking the stage. Whoever it is, in all probability he is alive right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point of the development of crops is a good one. The problem as Pye frames it is about development. Most all of the food crops are supposedly descenced from wild types. But that is not an easy thing to account for. There are very serious time and method problems. The piece I posted develops the “problem” quite well. To quote him again (brackets mine):

 

“Of course, [botanical] “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations [of the cellular chemistry of food crops by Neolithic humans] of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

 

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame….”

 

Lloyd is dead on in this assertion. To illustrate:

 

“In contrast, the staple crop of Mesoamerica, corn evolved from teosinte, an ancestor that looks nothing like it, and is not a good food, and took several thousand years of selective breeding to transform into corn – a slow and arduous process compared to the easy domestication of the many FC [Fertile Crescent] crops.”

Again, you're appealing to the ravings of an idiot. Lloyd Pye not only shows his pitiful misunderstanding of biology here, but also makes several dubious assumptions.

 

First of all, I know precious little about the agriculture of maize. I don't know what prompted people to start selectively breeding a crop like teosinte, but I think it's reasonable to assume that it probably wasn't intended for eating. After all, not all crops are food crops. Take cotton, for example.

 

Thus, Pye's first abysmal error is that he assumes that the motivation of such selective breeding is revealed in the result. This is not always the case, though. He fails to consider that sometimes new discoveries are built upon old discoveries or sometimes they happen entirely on accident.

 

The best example of this that I can think of is actually outside of agriculture. Scientists were developing a new drug to treat hypertension. They were testing it on volunteer subjects, and one of the side effects was that it caused erect penises. The unexpected causation lead to a discovery that wasn't intended by the research group. This, of course, is how Viagra was discovered.

 

The point is that in science, you don't always get what you intend to discover. Sometimes, you find something better. Thus, it's entirely possible that corn was only developed into a consumable crop after after an entirely unrelated acheivement with maize made it possible. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. Issac Asimov said it best when he said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"

 

Sure, it's speculation, but at least my speculation was based on an understanding of how discoveries are made. Pye's speculation, on the other hand, assumes that the domestication of corn means that agriculturists 5000 years ago (I'd sure like to know how he got that number) must have started selectively breeding an unedible crop just so they could make corn.

 

So, that pretty much defeats your first "problem". Actually, it wasn't really a problem at all. Pye simply appealed to ignorance and then padded it with unsupportable speculation. It's not looking good for you pal, Mr. Pye.

 

“Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.” ”

 

How would accidental DNA copy errors account for hair on the human scalp losing the stop-growth mechanism that regulates all other hair on all other species? Why is this most peculiar feature found in no other primates, but is completely common to every “racial” group in humans?

First of all, your question about "every racial group of humans" is ignorant. There's only one racial group of humans.

 

Second, you still haven't demonstrated a problem. I may not know why humans have longer head hair than all other primate species, but that doesn't make it a problem nor does it overturn the evidence for evolution as a process of biology. You're just appealing to ignorance. This is not an argument. You have to appeal to evidence or else your arguments mean dick.

 

I'll demonstrate. Here's a better question about human hair: Why do humans get goose bumps on their arms?

 

The answer: In mammalian species, such a reaction to cold causes the hair to stand up and create pockets that trap heat. It's also triggered by fear, because the mechanism that makes hair stand up also makes the creature look larger, thus warding off predators. That this remnant of biological history would appear in humans could only be explained by common ancestory.

 

See how I directed your attention to evidence of the same skin bump phenomena in other mammals? In furry creatures, it helps them keep warm, but it doesn't do anything for us. If we get goose bumps, we don't have any fur to trap heat. We still have to find some protection.

 

Now, please make some argument based on evidence or concede the argument.

 

Type “all fossils are transitional” into the Talk.Origins search engine. Only novices in the C/E debate use this phrase. A stronger position for you will be to become familiar with the contenders on the short and disputable transitional fossil list. What are found in the strata are very rarely anything but the remains of something already found. The fossil record just does not show gradualism. You can argue over the myriad details and interpretations, but there are too many paleo-people who have admitted that the record is disappointing.
Thus you reveal your ignorance of biology. Who said anything about gradualism?

 

The answer should be obvious, but then again, you don't seem to be too hip on science. Surely you've heard of punctuated equilibrium. Basically, there is very little change as long as the the environment remains stable. However, if the environment changes, then the old adaptations become negative, newer adaptations that weren't beneficial in the old environment now become favorable, and then you end up with new diversifications that you wouldn't have gotten had the environment not changed. Thus you have long periods of little change which are punctuated by brief periods of drastic change.

 

But is there any fossil evidence of this? Not exactly, but the evidence for punctuated equilibrium was never dependant upon the fossil record, so your "problem" is a non sequitur. We wouldn't expect to find something like that in the fossil record, because fossilization is a rare occurance, anyway. We're talking about genetics, and you keep bringing up rocks.

 

We know that punctuated equilibrium is correct, because we have stable species today that are clearly related to one another, but you don't find any gradualism between them, do you? Horses and donkeys are interfertile, so where is there common ancestory in the fossil record? Where is the gradualistic evidence that shows how llamas and camals diversified? There isn't any.

 

Do you see how you've invented a problem and heaped that problem on a methodology that never claimed to be able to find such evidence? That's called a strawman argument.

 

I'll say it again. All fossils are transitional. And the reason is because all species are transitional.

 

”In biology, there is no zenith in evolution.”

 

There are zeniths in Creation. The zeniths are reading this.

Worthless and ignorant assertion. Shows what you know.

 

The most successful organism on the planet is not a human. It's bacteria. If anything is the apex of biology, it's bacteria. But not because of a finalistic nature. It's the bacteria's ability to adapt that makes it successful. And thus the lesson we learn from this is that to survive is to change.

 

I have politely conceded all that I intend to about ERV’s. I am sick of it.
I don't care! If you want to talk about the strongest evidence for evolution, then you can't just ignore it when I give it to you! You don't get to monopolize the topic by harping on fossils.

 

Don't get me wrong. Fossils are great for establishing a timeline of morphology, but there is so much to evolution than just "this species kinda looks like that species". If you want to know about what causes evolution, then you have to observe species that exist now in various environments around the world, and you have to look at the DNA evidence itself. Picking and choosing which pieces of evidence you want to talk about is not allowed.

 

So either find a way to deal with ERVs or go home. As it stands, ERVs are fatal to the whole creation/ID theorum. You're not going to get away with evasions while I'm on the clock!

 

You really should call it genetic or micro-biological. And don’t get too spooled up over one modestly tenable argument. You have billions of details to account for with nothing more than mutations.
Your understanding of how science is done is astonishingly crude. You've been given more than enough evidence for common descent, and thus far you've done more to shield your eyes from the truth than actually understand anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why would not natural selection have eliminated the 90+% of "junk DNA" still in the genome?

”Likewise "junk DNA". (which most of it isn't)”

 

90+% should easily qualify as most.

So, rather than deal with the point that there's no selection pressure to remove "junk DNA", you try to quibble about an insignificant detail...

 

Should I assume you concede that point?

”you seem to be having trouble understanding the simplest of concepts regarding evolution so getting more detailed will just go even further over your head”

 

Actually, I think I do understand evolutionary basics. But I puzzled by your application of percentiles and statistical impossibilities.

Just goes to show that you don't understand evolutionary basics...
”If mutations are as effective as you have "proved" why are the most easy to evolve organisms unchanged in a thousand million years?

“Again, simple answer... since the Bacterial environment is the most unchanged the Bacteria haven't had to change much to survive” "

 

How would you accurately appraise their environment for a billion years?

Hello? They are aquatic... You know... float around in the oceans/lakes, places like that.

We have quite a bit of evidence for what those environments were like all that time ago, and we know that it's very simular to what we have now.

 

However, I will keep that question of yours in mind...

So, on one hand you are contending that these accidental, random copy errors are responsible for getting single-cell organisms all the way to T-Rex, sea lions, lobsters, condors and asparagus.

 

But on the other hand, bacteria, which can reproduce in minutes and are the most likely organisms to mutate, show no change in a billion years. The supposed common ancestor to humans and chimps is nowhere in sight, but the bacteria are still there, the same as they were in the “pre-cambrian” era.

 

I guess you’re right. Some evolutionary rationales just elude me.

Yes... they do. As I said, since the environment has barely changed, the organisms have barely evolved.

 

If you could get past the mis-conception that Mutations are the driving force of evolution, you might start to understand it. Until then, you are stopping yourself from learning.

“Also, how have crocodiles avoided any perceivable mutations for 150 million years?

“Hah! They've avoided any perceivable mutations have they?” "

"Sarcosuchus measured about 12 meters (40 feet) long and weighted as much as 10 metric tons. Its jaws alone were 1.8 meters (6 feet) tall.

“That is one hell of a perceivable mutation there...”

 

Its jaws alone were 1.8 meters long, rather than tall. And also:

 

“….Sarcosuchus was not from the same branch of the reptile family tree that gave rise to modern crocodilians”

 

http://members.aol.com/robinjoan3/suprcroc/suprcroc.htm

So, the claim that crocodiles have "avoided any perceivable mutations for 150 million years" is now shown false...

 

Well done on being caught out INVENTING a problem.

The animal you mentioned, along with giant mammals are called megafauna. They are extremely interesting and are easily accommodated by creation theory. The pre-flood earth was tropical to the poles and the atmosphere had higher oxygen and CO2 levels. (There are interesting theories about gravity being less pronounced.) Radically different environment, very different animals. Giant bison. sloths, and rhinos are problematic for evolution Before you invoke selection pressure, remember that you have to have accidental, random DNA copy errors before anything can be selected.

 

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Megafauna

How would you accurately appraise their environment?

 

Ooops... have I just shown you your own hypocrisy?

 

 

 

By the way... why do you insist that mutations MUST come first? Why are you unable to understand that Mutations AND selection pressure happen AT THE SAME TIME?

 

That failure is the cornerstone of your ignorance, and it looks like it's self-inflicted...

 

nothing more than mutations.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. What it does do, is make you sound like you're having a tantrum...

tantrum0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let's talk about how stupid Lloyd Pye is for a second. After seeing this, you all will realize why I happen to have the level of contempt I do for this clown.

 

Lloyd Pye is best known for his discovery of...

 

starchild.jpg

STARCHILD!!!

 

Heh-heh... oops... I mean...

 

starchskull.jpg

STARCHILD!!!

 

Apparently, this quack thinks that the "Starchild" skull is a crossbreed between a human and an alien. What evidence does he have for this? Absolutely none whatsoever! Oh, except for the standard appeal to ignorance (betcha didn't see that coming) because the shape of the skull is unlike any known deformity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pssst txviper...

 

...I'll tell you a secret...

 

 

 

...regurgiposting a debunked lie with an additional dose of selfrighteous arrogance does not increase your credibility.

 

:lmao::funny::lmao:

 

Oh boy, to think that fundies still think that "If them ebil unbelievers don't buy my lie, I'll just repeat it in an arrogant way and win!"... :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every guess is an error. The Bible indicates when antichrist will be revealed and we are not there yet. We know that he will be very impressive. There is a phenomena that can overtake entire nations when things are very bad whereby people will accept any person or ideology as long as they promise to restore stability. The desperate state of things will no doubt precede ac taking the stage. Whoever it is, in all probability he is alive right now.

 

Prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a biologist and do not wish to become one. I have limited time to research technical things such as this and am not qualified to evaluate information that is either agreeable or contrary to your belief.

If you are not qualified to evaluate the information, then why are you so adamant about your conclusions?

 

 

From what little I've have read about the subject, there is still a lot that is not understood about pseudogenes, retroviruses, and mutations being concentrated at hot spots. Your conclusion could be less tenable as more research is done.

Argument from ignorance.

 

 

But you didn't mention the databases of diseases and other undesirable results that are the result of such mutations.

How is that relevant to the question of what constitutes "information" in genetics? You're dodging.

 

I don't really detect that yours is a pursuit of truth.

Neither do I.

 

You have a certain slipperyness about this abiogenesis issue. You obviously (have no other choice but to) believe in it, but you want to detach it from evolutionary thought when asked to defend or even speculate about it.

That's because abiogenesis is not evolution. It is not necessary to show how life came from non-life to conclude that all existing forms of life share ancestry.

 

So all you have to do is illustrate how to get DNA base pairs from about 4 million in E-coli cell up to about 3 billion in one of ours.

No problem, I'll just need a few billion years to get the experiment right.

 

But according to your conclusion, God was able to create things instantaneously. So it should be no problem for him to demonstrate creation in the laboratory for me, right? Well, can he at least mutate some DNA for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.