The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

You are right. And I would suggest that the lack of clarity in your language is a result of a lack of clarity in your thought.I suggest that you study a bit of basic genetics until either you can express your ideas clearly or you realize that they're wrong. Either way is good, but at present your argument, if one can dignify it with that name, appears to be a 50/50 mixture of stuff that you've made up and stuff that doesn't even mean anything.

I kept reading and re-reading her argument (from this thread), and at times I could almost twist & tweak it enough in my head to make it seem like she was onto something interesting. But I kept falling back onto concrete facts that would overthrow her whole presumptions. I really don't have anything against her pushing her argument so vehemently, it's not easy to hold on to your focus in a storm of derision. But at the end of the day the studies have been done to answer fully just exactly her question and questions coming from that sector of thought. One hundred years ago her question would have carried a lot more weight.I think Bluejay has crystallized a few points that I hope she will understand. She doesn't have to be the one to understand the linkage between what her bible tells her and what science tells her. She might be able to see the truth in both and let someone else justify the inconsistencies between the two.

I know I'm supposed to stick to the other thread now (but I still do feel this is my thread) -- and I will but I almost cried for gratitude that someone here would say as much as it seemed at times I might be onto something, AND characterize what I'm up against as a "storm of derision." Now I hope my gratitude won't sour you against me but I have to say thank you for your open mindedness and willingness to concede anything at all to a creationist.Beyond that I sincerely wish you would spell out just what studies you believe have fully answered me and what points you think Bluejay is making that overturn my argument.Thank you.

There's nothing that obligates you to confine your participation to the other thread, but the whole purpose of that other thread was to reduce your workload so you can respond to just a single individual and not get so frustrated that you post single word messages like "ptui."--Percy

Glad to oblige. The subject of population genetics is dedicated to the kind of questions and answers you seek. Someone mentioned Hardy-Weinberg above, that too is in the WIKI article (a good starting point). There are however university courses on the subject that you might be able to audit. Even on youTube these days there are lectures given by the best universities and top notch professors easily accessible to the modern PC user. I'll throw up a link to one (but there are many):Yale Courses, that specific series of lectures is also available on podcast.Faith, I don't know if you consider me at all like other "evilutionists" or not, but my goal is to get us all on the same page, so we can look ahead toward the bigger problems looming on the horizon. Science is going there, and if you want to have a shot at steering you should be somewhere near the helm.

Your overview on the scientific endeavor sounds very interesting and I hope you have written about it somewhere here or will.I'm no scientist but I have books on evolution and population genetics and a thick binder full of printouts from the web on these and related subjects, and Hardy-Weinberg was among the very first concepts I encountered when I got onto this particular argument I'm trying to make so many years ago.I've also watched the occasional You Tube lecture on these subjects but I'll check out your link. Done!Thanks again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My take is very simple, technology out-paces ethics and is already far ahead of ethics. This may not be an optimal survival strategy for humans. We might just very well need the optimum.I hope you clicked the youTube video. I watched it again as well as the lecture afterwards. In the second, that would be the sixth in the series, I found 'lo and behold' the answer to your question, or at least the answer to the question I believe you have been asking for all of these years.

Are you saying that creationism -- or religion? -- might have something to offer the human race even if you don't believe in it?I've had that You Tube page open and minimized ever since you mentioned it. It's been fourth on my list of must-do-today projects for that long now but the Marxism thread keeps me hopping.Sounds like something I absolutely HAVE to get to before I come back here, thanks.

No, those are corrupt and a kind of "red herring" distracting a substantial portion of the population from addressing the ethical consequences of rapidly advancing technology. I can't say any more than that here on this thread, but there might be another thread available that addresses this kind of topic.As far as the video goes, Prof. Stearns addresses a wider base of the specific question you have. You have narrowed the scope of your concern somewhat, but I KNOW you will be able to find concise and even specific statements about what you've been asking.I have not read your other older threads about the topic nor very many posts after a certain point on this thread. I had been carefully trying to discern your stance and at a point just sort of gave up, not being able to figure out the point in having so many stipulations placed on the "imaginary scenario". So, I hope I have not misinterpreted your real question.You may not get affirmation of your stance, but you would definitely achieve a higher truth on the matter. And it seems to be a more direct, recent, comprehensive and even authoritative answer to what you have in mind. Moreover, on the other thread with Bluejay, he has and will, I think, get you to an even better answer than Stearns can because he can address your questions even more directly with feedback. If the Great Debate does ever open up to externals, then I might throw my interpretation into the fray as well.

You don't say.I for one am amazed to learn this. It's a bombshell.You really mean to tell me that when you drooled out halfwitted crap about genetics, you didn't actually know anything about genetics?Well, color me surprised. I thought that your contemptible ignorance on every scientific subject that you ever discuss was a sure and certain sign that you were an expert on that subject.Either that, or I'm being sarcastic.

Another bombshell for you Dr. A:I'm no Admin ... but this seems very inappropriate at this point.$.02

Well then, we must agree to disagree.Since the moderators have allowed Faith to start posting again, I have discovered that she has various flaws of her personality and intellect whereof I may not speak, because that would make the moderators cross with me.Nonetheless, I think that I am free to say that Faith prates about genetics when Faith is droolingly hopelessly ignorant and deluded about genetics. That's not an insult, that's just an undeniable fact.

One could argue that Faith's own posts are doing herself sufficient damage and that there's no need for others to assist in her efforts at destroying her own credibility, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect people to withhold comment, opinion, criticism and ridicule on such extremely stubborn, persistent and profound irrationality and error.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Since we're providing commentary, I thought it would be helpful to add some of my own.I honestly don't have a problem with Faith. I agree that she doesn't know enough about genetics to support her grandiose claims, and that her arguments suffer from this, but her perspective on the issue seems perfectly reasonable to me, given her background.From the outside, science certainly does look like a bunch of people applying a certain ideology to some data, and teaming up to keep all other ideologies out. From the inside, it sometimes looks to me like a bunch of passive-aggressive elitists who are more concerned with their reputation within the community than with the actual pursuit of knowledge. So, I sympathize with Faith for that.I don't see how insults and mockery are going to help change her perspectives or opinions about us or our work. If we were actually debating in formal forum, like a journal editorial section, it would probably be appropriate to do our utmost to ensure that people with stupid ideas were made to like look idiots and replaced with people who are more useful and productive. But, in an informal debate like this, I agree with CosmicChimp that the most important thing is to garner understanding.Otherwise, we'll just end up with only evolutionists talking amongst ourselves about how stupid creationists are. And that's extremely boring.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Understood.I do not mean to denigrate Dr. A as I feel the same frustrations just watching.However:What I see here is an exchange between Faith and CosmicChimp where the Chimp has her well in hand and constructively engaged. Then this roundhouse out of nowhere. It caught me as inappropriate given the demeanor of exchange.