A Logical account of creation

This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed

Yeah, and any statement that againts your beliefs is in favor of your beliefs.
How about the 100 scientist that I mention?

It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste

No! It doesnt,given that he said natural selection explain the "survival not the arrival of the fittest". Therefore he is inconflict with his self.

Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations

That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".

Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".

Are mutations producing anything new? The famous experiment on fruitfly drosophila melanogaster did not produce anything new,the fruitly remained a fruitfly. In fact modern research show that they have no significant effect on the creature only on their owners.

The magic we observe today (in responds of your second sentence),can be observe directly and can be proven that the trick is indeed done. Why compare proven things to unproven things.? As you said it is also "hard to believe that a man on stage can saw a girl in half" until ethe magician reveals his or her trick. Therefore in evolution who represents the magician? Mutation? Does mutation reveals it trick to you and not to others(i.e. Dean Kenyon,who said that biochemical evolution was undocumented).

This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.

Actually Im, not surprise that you reasct in this manner, this the way proponents of evolution behave whenever they encounter any scientifc laws that are inconflict with their beliefs. The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.

You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.

Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.

If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

traste writes: That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".

Even IF Sagan were qualified to say this, I call bullshit on this one. Give me the complete source, or admit you were lying.

Are mutations producing anything new?

Yes.

The famous experiment on fruitfly drosophila melanogaster did not produce anything new,the fruitly remained a fruitfly.

You really don't know what evolution is all about, do you?

In fact modern research show that they have no significant effect on the creature only on their owners.

Stop lying. There were many effects on the fruitflies, including new species.

The magic we observe today (in responds of your second sentence),can be observe directly and can be proven that the trick is indeed done.

Same with evolutions.

Why compare proven things to unproven things.?

I don't know, you keep bringing up creationsism, not us.

Actually Im, not surprise that you reasct in this manner, this the way proponents of evolution behave whenever they encounter any scientifc laws that are inconflict with their beliefs.

There exists no scientific law that contradicts evolution. Stop lying.

The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.

Really? Would you mind pointing out where those boundaries are, if it is so well established?

Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.

Another lie without backing.

If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

Actually, it will probably be creationsim.

---

I hunt for the truth

No! It doesnt,given that he said natural selection explain the "survival not the arrival of the fittest". Therefore he is inconflict with his self.

You are lying: in that respect he is in agreement with himself and every other biologist in the world.

That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".

You are lying. This is why you cannot quote him saying any such thing.

Are mutations producing anything new? The famous experiment on fruitfly drosophila melanogaster did not produce anything new

You are lying, as anyone familiar with the thousands of experiments on fruit flies will be well aware.

In fact modern research show that they have no significant effect on the creature only on their owners.

You are lying. This is why you cannot cite this imaginary "modern research".

Does mutation reveals it trick to you and not to others(i.e. Dean Kenyon,who said that biochemical evolution was undocumented).

The lies of the notorious creationist fraud Dean Kenyon do not constitute evidence.

Actually Im, not surprise that you reasct in this manner, this the way proponents of evolution behave whenever they encounter any scientifc laws that are inconflict with their beliefs. The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.

You are lying. This is why you can produce no evidence for these imaginary boundaries.

Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.

You are lying. This is why you cannot quote any science professor saying any such thing.

If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

... says the habitual liar.

Let's hear from some actual intellectual men.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually the fact that some proponents of evolution(i.e. Gould, Eldridge, propose punctuated equilibrium to "explain the lack of transitional link") are saying that there are no transitional forms are good proof that I was able to asked excellent question .

I was leaving this for someone else to explain to you in simple enough terms but no one seems to have focused on this. I'll have a go and see if you can get it.

Gould and Eldridge were talking about transitionals at the level of speciation not at higher levels. They have/had no problem with transitionals between higher groups like orders and classes. Eg. from fish to amphibian or reptile to mammal.

Punk Eck (punctuated equilibrium) does NOT support you argument. If you want to use ideas you have to understand them first. You will not get the truth from the creationist web sites that are doing all you thinking for you.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

Do you misrepresent willingly, are you just ignorant or are you a Liar for Jesus?

That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".

Amazing what you get when you quote mine and take things out of context. What it does is make you look dishonest and your arguments weak.

quote:

---

The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps.

---

Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

quote:

---

Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.

---

Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1985), p. 27

So Sagan did not believe that all mutations were lethal. He understood the importance of mutations. This is a lame canard brought out regularly by you creationists.

Please supply the source for the original assertion, so that we can see it in its context. How about just supplying the original quote.

Edited by Theodoric, : punctuation

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

traste writes: Does mutation reveals it trick to you and not to others(i.e. Dean Kenyon,who said that biochemical evolution was undocumented).

The magic of evolution is revealed to anyone with an open mind, who is prepared to put some work in it and study it in some detail.

The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.

If it is so well-established, then I'm sure you can produce one or more links to some peer-reviewed articles about it.

Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.

Could you name and cite them please?

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The famous experiment on fruitfly drosophila melanogaster did not produce anything new,the fruitly remained a fruitfly.

I don't know, traste. It looks like that extra copy of the "f" gene being inserted between the "t" gene and the "l" gene of fruitly was a translation error that added worthwhile information to me. Isn't it part of your thesis that mutations only degrade?

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

Im sorry guys I cannot reply all your lies,Iam very busy with my mathemathical research, and I think is just a waste of time to deal with liars, but I'll be back.

Edited by traste, : correcting grammar

Iam very busy with my mathemathical research…

The next number is six. Just start using the other hand too. Come on back when you get stuck again. I've got another trick for you. It involves taking off one shoe.

Edited by lyx2no, : typo.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : {Note: 6 hour suspension for this message}

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

Im sorry guys I cannot reply all your lies,Iam very busy with my mathemathical research, and I think is just a waste of time to deal with liars, but I'll be back.

Unlike you, I have a PhD in math. Please feel free to ask me if you need any help with your "mathemathical research"

I think that you actually meant "mathematical", but I guess that your "research" into this subject hasn't led you so far as to teach you what the subject is actually called. Let me give you a hint. It isn't called "mathemathics".

And if you'd like me to explain to you what the word "liar" means, which you also seem to be confused about, I can tell you that too. English is one of the languages that I can speak. Perhaps it would take me a long time to get the concept into your head, but basically "liar" means someone who says things that are untrue. There are subtleties and refinements to the definition, which I shall be happy to explain to you, but only once I have established that you recognize that there is, in principle, a difference between truth and falsehood.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Im sorry guys I cannot reply all your lies,Iam very busy with my mathemathical research, and I think is just a waste of time to deal with liars, but I'll be back.

You are somewhat new and a creationist. Therefore you get away with a bit more.

Calling someone a liar is against forum guidelines. It is also fraught with issues for you. You might, afterall, be wrong about the issues. You also don't really know if the person is just wrong and doesn't know the truth or is actually deliberately lying.

A much better way to embarrass the individual is to point out exactly how they are wrong. You haven't done that. Some here might suggest that you can't.

Huntard wrote:

Even IF Sagan were qualified to say this, I call bullshit on this one. Give me the complete source, or admit you were lying.

You can call bullshit anything you like, I will not hold you. Why should I give you the complete source if after all you just call them bullshit for the simple reason that you dont like?

Yes.

No. The fruitly doesnt became anything new,or you just have poor sight that is why you say that.

You really don't know what evolution is all about, do you?

No. But I guess you dont. It predicts that over period of time an organism will become into something new, but as we observed the fruitly remained a fruitly ,hence it violates the prediction.

Stop lying. There were many effects on the fruitflies, including new species.

I am happy if you can give me one.

Same with evolutions.

Evidence will do better than words.

I don't know, you keep bringing up creationsism, not us.

This op is all about a logical account of creation,hence it is only right and proper to bring the issue of creationism here.

[qs]There exists no scientific law that contradicts evolution. Stop lying[q/qs]

Why not research about the law of recurrent variation so that you will know. I will not bother myself to point to you where those boundaries if after all you just ignore it, because you dont like to see it.

Actually, it will probably be creationsim.

The fact that evolution cannot explained how those complexities came about by natural selection is a good proof that evolution is a fraud science.

Dr Adequate wrote:

You are lying: in that respect he is in agreement with himself and every other biologist in the world.

In his abstract he wrote that natural selection pruducing anything new ,while on that quote he said that natural doesnt produce anything new. Is he in agreement with his self? Or you simply dont understand.

You are lying. This is why you cannot quote him saying any such thing.

That is real.

You are lying, as anyone familiar with the thousands of experiments on fruit flies will be well aware.

Serious scientist are saying they doesnt produce anything new,only stupid ones.

You are lying. This is why you cannot cite this imaginary "modern research".

That is not imaginary that is real, I will not bother myself to show you those modern research because they are very obvious. Did you not see them.?

The lies of the notorious creationist fraud Dean Kenyon do not constitute evidence.

You claimed that you have a Ph.D degree in math,but this type of reasoning is childish this is something that a Ph.D degree holder must not posses. Actually he is not noturious given that he said that he is a very "much Darwinist" back then in fact he co authored the book biochemical predestination which influenced many proponents of evolution(maybe including you). But as he examined the evidence he found out that it is inconsistent with Darwin's prediction that is the real reason that he give is hhis evolutionary beliefs. He also found out that noprotein can assemblle with out the help from genetic information.

You are lying. This is why you can produce no evidence for these imaginary boundaries.

Feel free to research about the law of recurrent variation and then come back so that we can talk the matter. But Iam afraid you cannot do that for the simple reason that you are not concern of any evidences that are inconflict with your beliefs. For you all evidences that are fatal to your beliefs are just nothing but lies. So. Why should I show you.?

... says the habitual liar.

These words are excellent description of you and those people who believe in evolution.

Let's hear from some actual intellectual men.

No! They aren't. The fact is they are actual liar. Given that many scientist disagree with them.

NosyNed wrote:

Gould and Eldridge were talking about transitionals at the level of speciation not at higher levels. They have/had no problem with transitionals between higher groups like orders and classes. Eg. from fish to amphibian or reptile to mammal

Gould and Eldridge are paleontologist ,they are both expers on seashell fossils they formulated punctuated equlibrium for the simple reason that,they found no transitional forms between shells,not as what you had suggested. Regarding the evolution of fish to amhibian and then from amphibian to reptile and finally from amphibian to mammal I will vbe very glad if you can show to me that transitional forms.(i.e. gills to lungs.)

Theodocric wrote:

Amazing what you get when you quote mine and take things out of context. What it does is make you look dishonest and your arguments weak.

It is not out of context,what Iam implying is that mutation is not beneficial, since out of 1000 only only one is succesful,that is the real reason why I qoute Sagan.

Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

I know also that qoute,he is implying that mutation serve as a "raw material for evolution" but they cannot because most of them as he wrote are "lethal"

So Sagan did not believe that all mutations were lethal. He understood the importance of mutations.

Does the qoute most of them are "lethal" means to you all mutations are lethal? Or you are just so defensive that is why you cannot comprehend properly.