1st Idea of a Risen Ape?: Has anybody ever noticed that nearly instantly the
moment that the 'species' aka 'us' gets the notionthat we might be able to
build the technology to leave the planet; THAT THE VERY NEXT notion is to
formulate incipient plans to TERRA FORM other planets? INSTANT TERRA-FORMERS:
Not exactly a 'gradual' progressional-'evolutionary' AMBITION. INSTANT
COLLONIZERS: I've not heard of any recent observations of CHIMPANZEE's
striking out to form distant colonies? Hmmm; the notion that SOME OTHER
TERRAFORMERS may have 'loaned' us the 'genetics' of themselves or some other
TERRA FORMING FOLKS becomes more compelling by the moment. . . Why is it
SPONTANEOUSLY INGRAINED within Homo-Sap that WHILE we are still
PETRI-DISH-TRAPPED upon the 'sphere' that we perforce MUST EXTERMINATE
eachother so as NOT to DESTROY OUR HABITAT for all future generations? eg. . .
"THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL" necessary gambit. . . . Planetarily speaking
Homo-Sap 'knew' the necessity for 'self-culling' WELL BEFORE WE WERE EVER NEAR
OVERPOPULATING THE PETRI DISH. . . . We 'knew' this LONG BEFORE any
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS had a chance to 'teach' this to our genetic code. . . I am
NOT a NAZI. . . so hows about LET'S ALL GET OFF OF THE PLANET AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE to MAXIMIZE GENETIC DIVERSITY & HYBRID VIGOR instead of CONTINUING
WITH FURTHER REITERATION OF OUR DARK HISTORY! Laziness is DEADLY CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE. . . and NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS CURRENTLY ENJOYING A HUGE REBIRTH in
the MIDDLE & UPPER ESCHELONS of both RUSSIAN & GERMAN SOCIETY & GOVERNMENT. . .
Hello, test. . . test. . . "Soylent Green is People."
From: jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 05:17:59 +0800
Subject: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution (Was::Koch founded climate
skeptic changes sides)
Jed, I have. The more I do, the more I
realize Darwinian Evolution is a lie and a fraud.
You see, over the years many "neo" Darwinists have
been coming up with explanations to plug the leaky holes of Darwin's original
theory. Neo Darwininism is now a hodgepodge conglomeration of increasingly
dubious ideas. Take Stephen J. Gould's idea of "Punctuated Evolution",
that hypothesizes that evolution occurs in spurts. Punctuated Evolution
was devised to explain why after over a century of intense fossil digging, we
still have not found any of the supposedly "transition species".? So
he came up with this nonsense to explain why transition species can not be
found. So, he think he has plugged one hole, not realizing that he has
opened up another bigger hole. Like, how do you explain "rapid"
evolution without a cause. If evolution occurs in spurts, it is rapid and
therefore does not fit Darwin's original idea that evolution is due to slow
mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest). Using this
criteria, Gouild's Punctuated Evolution is no longer Darwinian Evolution.
Both ideas presupposes a different mechanism that drive changes. What that
mechanism is, Gould conveniently "does not know".
Did you know that the entire narrative of man's
supposed descent from ape-like creatures, to Lucy down to Homo Sapiens
is stitched together by bones that would fit the bed of a small pickup
truck. How can one be so biased as to claim that a truck full of
bones is sufficient "fact" to claim the descent of man as a
tautology.
And there are a host of other ideas just a
ridiculous and dubious as the above.
So, as a matter of fact Jed, I know and have
studied Darwinian Evolution. I am not the close-minded, propaganda-victim,
blind faith individual you would like to believe. So, Jed, how many
papers in Intelligent Design have you read and studied. Have you read
Stephen Meyer's paper on Specified Complexity?. Have you read
Microbiologist Micheal Behe's paper on Irreducible Complexity and the Bacterial
Flagellum? Have you read Tipler's "The physics of Immortality"?
(Jed, I said read the original paper, not the "For dummies" version you find in
the web.) LOL....
Of course NOT.... cause reading these papers
would give the field of Intelligent Design legitimacy, right? You will not
engage in a debate with me on the fallacies of Darwinian Evolution because that
would give me legitimacy, right? And of course, you won't debate a
close-minded, propaganda-victim, blind faith individual because that is beyond
your superior intellect and understanding, right? The same blinded belief why
Bob Parks would not debate with
you regarding Cold Fusion.
OK, Whatever, at least we know who the close-minded
individual here is.
Jed, If you are so inclined, I can go into
detail on the numerous significant problems of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian
Evolution theories like:
1. Irreducible Complexity
2. Specified Complexity
3. DNA Information
4. Biological Chirality
5. Abiogenesis
6. Impropability
7. Anthropic Principle
8. Lack of Fossil Record
9. Cell Structure
10. Fossil Graves
11. OOPS - Out-of-Place stuff
These are just a sampling of the numerous holes of
Neo-Darwinianism. Each Mack-truck hole is a significant problem for the
theory in itself that any fair and open-minded person would gasp in amazemnet
at
the Darwinian Evolution lie that has been foisted on them.
But, of course, you have superior understanding, so
you won't even bother strudying these issues. Why, all the "experts" agree
that Darwinian Evolution is correct, so no need to debate me,
right?
LOL ...
Jojo
PS. By the Way, Since Rule 2 is just a
guideline, and "We make the rules as we go", and since this is a "scientific
discussion", my posting of Darwinian Evolution is proper for this forum,
right? And since, I can't persuade you to moderate your hijacking of this
forum, might as well correct your misinformation and propaganda at every
step.
Let's see how many people here are as objective as
they would like to believe. $100 bucks says I will now receive a barage of
criticism that my posting on Darwinian Evolution is inappropriate, and no doubt
from our "esteemed" colleage Dr. Peter Gluck. And of course, I can just go
"F*** my self", right? Another $100 bucks says I will now be banned from
this forum. And if that is so, so be it. That's the price I am
willing to pay for standing up to what is right. And what am I standing
for? Simply that people do not hijack Vortex-L with off-topic posts as clearly
specified in our existing rules. Simply that we as a community try to
preserve the relevance and value of Vortex-L by discussing only issues that are
important. Dead Everest Bodies and Wisconsin Politics are clearly
off-topic, and so is AGW propaganda.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Jed
Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:03
AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate
skeptic changes sides
So Jed, you are so convinced about the
truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my question. Have you read
Darwin's "The origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". . . .
You know, there has been other research in this field since 1859. Several
other biologists * have made observations that support the theory, and they
have modified and expanded it. Perhaps you should look at some of the later
work, rather than judging it by the first paper alone. many people who
criticize cold fusion look only at the first paper by Fleischmann and Pons,
which is admittedly not convincing. I think it is better to look at the
totality of evidence.
- Jed
* When I say "several" biologists in this instance, I mean all of
them.
