ts that to my knowledge he ever posted on and he
has not posted for some time now.
Richard
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM, chris peck
wrote:
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's
tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious pro
On 13 Aug 2013, at 02:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:40:13PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of
properties
to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in
space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally.
From: John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:57 PM
Subject: R
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of
view
Yes
> without of course falling into the mental trap of
anthropo
>
> I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of view
>
Yes
> > without of course falling into the mental trap of anthropomorphizing
> the gene and assigning to it qualia that are associated with self-aware
> consciousness.
>
I am unaware of any thinker on evolution wort
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:57:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
> > >>>[The central dogma of molecular biology] deals with the detailed
> >>> states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to
> >>> either protein or nucleic acid.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>[The central dogma of molecular biology] deals with the detailed
>>> states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to
>>> either protein or nucleic acid.
>>>
>>>
>> >> I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic
>> repeat
of exerting hereditary influences
on organisms yet to be born.
-Chris
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Tue, Aug 13,
.
-Chris D
From: John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella wrote:
>> John Epigenetic changes d
13, 2013 6:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
Hi Chris
>>You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward.
No I really don't. I was just being a little light hearted in that
paragraph.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella wrote:
>> John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
>> more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I
>> see no evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the
>> direction of great
ll be reciprocal. Dogs get big benefits when they do good
things.
all the best
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:12:56 +1000
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>
> On Tue, Aug
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:01:52PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
> > residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
>
>
> Yes, but we're not talking about molecular biology, w
gh sometimes I get the impression my dog
can easily read me and that I am an open book to him :)
Chris D
From: chris peck
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wr
d for the meaning of what
is meant by breeding has come due for an update.
-Chris D
From: meekerdb
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/1
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 8/13/2013 12:00 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> John >> Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
> more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I
> see no evidence that epi
ially co-operative behaviour and between sisters.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrot
t: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/13/2013 12:00 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
John >> Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more
important I see no evidence that the body has learned any l
On 8/13/2013 11:45 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't question that breeding can induce hereditary changes in a population, but rather
am wondering about what mechanisms are used to do so.
I don't think "induced" is the right word. It isn't *inducing changes* in the DNA, it's
*selecting* c
On 8/13/2013 12:00 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
John >> Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more
important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I see no evidence
that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction of greater
adap
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
> residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
Yes, but we're not talking about molecu
t 13, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
>I was wondering if there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak; in
>other words are there any areas of coding DNA that are known to
elping to lower
transactional costs perhaps.
Cheers,
-Chris D
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evo
.
>
> -Chris
>*From:* meekerdb
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, August 12, 2013 11:56 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>
> On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> What co-evolutionary
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
> residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
Yes, but we're not talking about molecular biology, we're talking about
Evolution and it has a different central dogma.
> > I
8:49 -0700
From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Brent ~ I follow the logic and am not arguing with it. I was wondering if
there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak; in other words are there
any
: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and cattle
because of their association with humans (so which are therefore part of the
equation)?
Dogs are just wo
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:40:13PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> > What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central
> > dogma.
> >
>
> How
sters.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: 13 August 2013 4:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> What co-evolutionary traits ha
On 8/12/2013 9:41 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
What co-evolutionary traits have been shown to have occurred in dogs and cattle because
of their association with humans (so which are therefore part of the equation)?
Dogs are just wolves that, thru (un)natural selection have evolved to bond w
On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish
> > wrote:
>
> > variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
>>
>
> There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having
> been observed to occur in the lab or in
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> I have heard this survival of the community dynamics being used to
> suggest why for example we still have behaviors such as altruism still
> quite common amongst members of our species
>
It's not just our species that displays altruistic behavior
are related to and
underpin the behaviors and traits being observed.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:59 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
> What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central
> dogma.
>
How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person to
another. Sometim
t;
>>> --------------
>>> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>>> From: yann...@gmail.com
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> Is this th
;>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM, chris peck wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
>>>
>>> --------------
>>> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
>>> S
g 12, 2013 at 9:28 AM, chris peck wrote:
>
>> I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
>>
>> --
>> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
> From: yann...@gmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the everything list?
> Have we lost Bruno for good?
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from post
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the everything list?
Have we lost Bruno for good?
Richard
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/11/2013 7:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> I would not be surprised to find that there is evidence of cross species
> congl
On 8/11/2013 7:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I would not be surprised to find that there is evidence of cross species conglomerates
of organisms that have evolved to survive together, in other words that the Darwinian
selection mechanism could potentially be extended to take into account both
ck
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
Hi Chris and John
The paper I linked to describes a evolutionary dynamic which emphasizes
horizontal over vertical genetic transfer. I think it is d
ty that it might offer an argument against Statham's in this
thread's original post.
All the best.
From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:15:13 -0700
John, Russell
Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:21 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
>> It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation.
> Epigenetic cha
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:36:27PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish
> wrote:
>
> > Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
> > an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is
> > passed onto the n
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
> an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is
> passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral stories.
>
Yes but even the
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>> >> It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation.
>>
>
>
>
> > Epigenetic changes that effect what is transcribed is not mutation – at
> least in the classic sense of changing – i.e. mutating – the underlyin
Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life
is passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral
stories.
Cheers
--
-
groups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
> some feel Epigenetic
chaos or order and life very quickly
stops living.
Cheers,
-Chris
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theo
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> some feel Epigenetics should only refer to the actual molecular
> mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and histone modification) that alter
> the underlying gene expression; I find this restrictive and use epigenetics
> to also describe inh
egroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
Th
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> If "not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast
> majority of them are not"
> how is that functionally different from mutations.
>
It is NOT functionally different from mutation, that was precisely my
point. No ma
If "not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast
majority of them are not"
how is that functionally different from mutations.
Richard David Ruquist
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:37 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > variants like La
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
>
There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having
been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely
inconsistent with our understanding of embryology
ntious, btw.
>
> All the best
>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:28:41 -0700
> > From: meeke...@verizon.net
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
> >
> > On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris p
verizon.net
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>
> On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
> > Hi Prof. Standish
> >
> > Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link
&g
On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Prof. Standish
Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link in the
original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head, but not all of it,
so I'll persevere...
"ISTM that you are implicitly assuming that
ld evolve without the consequent catastrophe.
All the best.
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:02:33 +1000
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You can probably
Hi Chris,
You can probably find all that you need here
http://physis.sourceforge.net/
It looks like it is a defunct research programme, but maybe you could
follow up citations.
I could probably dig out an e-copy of the ECAL paper from my
institution's Springerlink subscription, if you're really
e the
issue for evolutionary theory Stathan supposes. He hints at that with reference
to Dawkins.
Alternatively, maybe Im just barking up the wrong tree. Wouldn't be the first
time...
Best Regards
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:04:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory o
explanation on top of "the universe just is", but it seems possible.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/6/2013 8:10 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Does Deism appeal to you at all Brent?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: meekerdb
> To: everything-list
>
> Sent:
have for how life sprang up on this rock.
From: Russell Standish
To: "everything-list@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:46:44A
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, wrote:
> If one has to disprove the best of sciences, which appears to be
> evolutionary adaptation, in order to defend one's religion, then there must
> be something wrong about the religion.
>
Yes, that's why there is something wrong with religion.
> > There's
everything-list
Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 12:14 am
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/5/2013 6:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It allows annoys me how christians justify all the suffering and
overall shittiness of existence with: ah, but that is necessary
because God wa
Does Deism appeal to you at all Brent?
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
To: everything-list
Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 12:14 am
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/5/2013 6:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It allows annoys me how christians justify
On 8/5/2013 6:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It allows annoys me how christians justify all the suffering and
overall shittiness of existence with: ah, but that is necessary
because God wanted us to have free will.
He apparently also wanted us to have leukemia, AIDS, plague, tsunamis, volcanoes, m
al
interchange between Mars and Earth. If they're very different, it
would point to a much later evolution of the standard code than LHB,
and the creationists had better hope it turns out to be identical :).
Cheers
> > Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 02:21:19 +0100
> > Subjec
take. What is the mechanism for that? Or have I just lost the
plot?
All the best
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 02:21:19 +0100
> Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
> From: te...@telmomenezes.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> On Mon
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also
>>> > has to believe that this
s the result of trillions of generations of
evolutionary pressure favoring the high fidelity of DNA.
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
I wi
t does not pose much of a problem for evolution.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 08:19:42AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
> Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
>
> The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
>
>
>
> Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (re
believe in God.
-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>> > if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also
>> has to believe that this god
>> was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: the
>> f
st
; 4dworldx <4dwor...@yahoogroups.com>;
"inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk" ;
"inclusional...@yahoogroups.com" ; plamen
simeonov ; theoretical_physics
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 5:19 AM
Subject: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
Serious
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> > if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also has
> to believe that this god
> was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: the
> fossil record,
Yes, but that's not the only reason God woul
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> > Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
>> The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
>
>
> You put no effort into defending your Juv
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
> The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
>
You put no effort into defending your Juvenile ideas so I see no reason why
I should put any effort into attacking them.
Dominic Statham is a creationist.
http://creation.com/dominic-statham
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
>
> The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
>
>
> Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [
79 matches
Mail list logo
