Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by JS357
Please try again without the parentheses.

http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=36

The point of my post was to let you know the paper was published in Nature, a peer reviewed journal. You seemed to think that peer review would matter to you. Maybe that's not the case.

"Genetic Alchemy: Turning Lobsters into Fruit Flies"
The title of the article is over zealous in his assessment of
what this study shows. However, I am aware of "Nature".
Here I have to go to the Medical College library to see one.
It does have some interesting articles at times. But some
of its contributors "jump the gun" sometimes. This could be
one of those times. Maybe, they will get some award for
their scientific acheivement. But, I think I will hold out until
I actually know they turned a lobster into a fruit fly.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The evidence for microevolution is so overwhelming that it has been scientifically proven:

http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

can I take it you don't despite the observed microevolution events?
If so, then a macroevolution event is just a series of microevoluti ...[text shortened]... environment to stimulate such a change.


http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

I finally finished reading "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", which
was your second link. And I did not see one evidence for macroevolution.
He quotes part of the Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 14:11-18, KJV conveniently
stopping before 19. He does not mention this refers to the Israelite
dietary laws. He states, "In real-life phylogenetic analysis, shared derived
characters may be in conflict with other derived characters. Thus, objective
methods are required for resolving this character conflict. For instance,
wings are a derived character of birds and of bats. Bases upon this
character alone, the cladistic method would group bats and birds together,
which is how the author of Deuteronomy grouped them in the Biblical quote
above. However, other shared derived characters indicate that bats should
be grouped with wingless mammals, and that birds should be grouped with
wingless dinosaurs. One of the oldest, most basic, and most frequently used
methods for character resolution is the maximum parsimony criterion. The
parsimony criterion mandates that the best tree describing the data is the
tree that minimizes the amount of character conflicts. For example, consider
a dataset containing 10 shared derived characters that groups bats with apes
(rather than with birds), and with one character that groups bats with birds
(rather than with apes). According to the parsimony criterion, the tree giving
the first grouping shoul be preferred. Currently, parsimony is the method of
choice for reconstructing morphological trees.

I am not sure if he was implying the Holy Bible is wrong or not. If so, he
was wrong. The reason they were qrouped that way was because these
were the animals with wings that the Israelites should not eat. It had nothing
to do with a morphological tree.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I went to your links; and I'll take your last like first.
This was from the University of California, San Diego News.
The article, dtd 02/06/2002, is titled, "First Genetic Evidence
Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes Occurred
During Early Animal Evolution".
Quoting from the article:
"The problem for a long time has been over the issue of mac ...[text shortened]... ad it all yet. The first link, I forgot
what it was. I'll have to go back.

Why would losing anything be thought of as evidence toward macroevolution? If
something new isn't being produced who cares? Everyone knows we can lose
information or have a system break down, but becoming more functionally complex
where you add something like fingers or a thumb where none were before, that
would be something to talk about.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Genetic Alchemy: Turning Lobsters into Fruit Flies"
The title of the article is over zealous in his assessment of
what this study shows. However, I am aware of "Nature".
Here I have to go to the Medical College library to see one.
It does have some interesting articles at times. But some
of its contributors "jump the gun" sometimes. This could be
o ...[text shortened]... ut, I think I will hold out until
I actually know they turned a lobster into a fruit fly.

To RJHinds: If you go in peace, I will count you as a peaceful advocate of your views. All I have done is to seek to reply to your questions about peer reviews, etc.

Originally posted by JS357
To RJHinds: If you go in peace, I will count you as a peaceful advocate of your views. All I have done is to seek to reply to your questions about peer reviews, etc.

Yes I understand. No problem with that.
With Love,
RJHinds

Originally posted by dj2becker
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."

My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."

If I kill you and your kid kills me and my kid kills your kid...

That's why war is wrong. It's a vicious circle.
And it's never about religion. Religion is just a way of motivating you to go and die to make someone else richer and more powerful. Always has been, always will be.
Same with culture and borders; not reasons, they're motivational tools.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would losing anything be thought of as evidence toward macroevolution? If
something new isn't being produced who cares? Everyone knows we can lose
information or have a system break down, but becoming more functionally complex
where you add something like fingers or a thumb where none were before, that
would be something to talk about.
Kelly

“....Why would losing anything be thought of as evidence toward macroevolution? ...”

if losing something is one of a series of microevolution events that occurred in the same lineage of living thing then evidence of that would be evidence of PART (that part) of the macroevolution event.

Also mote that the DEFINING feature of evolution is NOT that things become more “complex” -it is possible that something living can evolve to become less “complex” in some sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I finally finished reading "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", which
was your second link. And I did not see one evidence for macroevolution.
He quotes part of the Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 14:11-18, KJV conveniently
stopping before 19. He does not mention this refers to the Israelite
dietary laws. He states, "In real-life phylogenetic analysis, shared d ...[text shortened]... h wings that the Israelites should not eat. It had nothing
to do with a morphological tree.

“...I finally finished reading "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", which
was your second link. And I did not see one evidence for macroevolution. ...”

in what sense does it show “no” evidence? Have you read just the introduction or have you read any other pages? Just click some of the titles in blue print under “Outline” -for example, click “Part 4. Molecular evidence “ or, perhaps better, click “Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree “ and come back to me and tell me in what way this isn't evidence.

also I would like to add:

http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/Creationist-Misrepresentations-Of-Macroevolution-And-Microevolution.htm

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....Why would losing anything be thought of as evidence toward macroevolution? ...”

if losing something is one of a series of microevolution events that occurred in the same lineage of living thing then evidence of that would be evidence of PART (that part) of the macroevolution event.

Also mote that the DEFINING feature of evolution is NOT t ...[text shortened]... omplex” -it is possible that something living can evolve to become less “complex” in some sense.

I see you point, but think if you want to use examples of things getting simpler
or less complex as proof or evidence that things can get more complex, I fail to
see how, or why anyone would take that as evidence. No one has ever argued
that any system living or otherwise can lose information, or break down so that it
becomes less complex and fails. That happens all the time, what does not happen
except between the ears of believers are examples of wings, legs, arms, and so
on appearing where they were never before, where some creature over time
became more complex, where its system took on new limbs or organs and thrived.
So I do not think losing information or parts of a system disappearing should be
called evidence for evolution, it would be evidence against it in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I finally finished reading "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", which
was your second link. And I did not see one evidence for macroevolution. ...”

in what sense does it show “no” evidence? Have you read just the introduction or have you read any other pages? Just click some of the titles in blue print under “Outline” -for example, click “Par ...[text shortened]... evolutionexplained/tp/Creationist-Misrepresentations-Of-Macroevolution-And-Microevolution.htm

This discussion of the evidence for evolution is taking place in the Spirituality forum, right? That should explain the sense in which "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" shows "no evidence" for macroevolution.

Originally posted by JS357
This discussion of the evidence for evolution is taking place in the Spirituality forum, right? That should explain the sense in which "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" shows "no evidence" for macroevolution.

How about reading the article then break it down in simple terms
that we can all understand and point out the 29 evidence which he
did not number. Possibly it was all mixed together and I overlooked
them. But, honestly, I did not see them. Maybe you could number
them for me to point them out.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about reading the article then break it down in simple terms
that we can all understand and point out the 29 evidence which he
did not number. Possibly it was all mixed together and I overlooked
them. But, honestly, I did not see them. Maybe you could number
them for me to point them out.

You are asking the wrong person, as I am not being critical of your beliefs. I only point out that this being posted on the spirituality forum, it stands to reason that the dispute is theological, not scientific.

But it is false that they were not numbered, at least when I looked, they were.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


It may be true that they were not in simple enough terms.

Originally posted by JS357
You are asking the wrong person, as I am not being critical of your beliefs. I only point out that this being posted on the spirituality forum, it stands to reason that the dispute is theological, not scientific.

But it is false that they were not numbered, at least when I looked, they were.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


It may be true that they were not in simple enough terms.

There was no numbering 1 through 29. On what page do you find 29?
Under what topic or heading is it? I'm interested in finding it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I finally finished reading "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", which
was your second link. And I did not see one evidence for macroevolution. ...”

in what sense does it show “no” evidence? Have you read just the introduction or have you read any other pages? Just click some of the titles in blue print under “Outline” -for example, click “Par ...[text shortened]... evolutionexplained/tp/Creationist-Misrepresentations-Of-Macroevolution-And-Microevolution.htm

Even if I did accept this as evidence, It could be evidence of a
common designer instead of common descent.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see you point, but think if you want to use examples of things getting simpler
or less complex as proof or evidence that things can get more complex, I fail to
see how, or why anyone would take that as evidence. No one has ever argued
that any system living or otherwise can lose information, or break down so that it
becomes less complex and fails. Tha ...[text shortened]... should be
called evidence for evolution, it would be evidence against it in my opinion.
Kelly

"...I see you point, but think if you want to use examples of things getting simpler
or less complex as proof or evidence that things can get more complex, ..."


why would want to show that “ things can get more complex”? -I don't because that would not be directly relevant.

“...That happens all the time, what DOES NOT HAPPEN
except between the ears of believers are examples of wings, legs, arms, and so
on appearing where they were never before, ...” (my emphasis)

“DOES NOT HAPPEN” when? Within recorded human history? If so, we wouldn't predict from evolution that that would happen within recorded human history because that time period is too short for that and therefore we would not deny that. But it HAS happened many millions of years ago. We have fossil evidence and other evidence for that.

“...So I do not think losing information or parts of a system disappearing should be
called evidence for evolution, it would be evidence against it in my opinion.
Kelly ...”

No, loosing something would be just as good evidence for evolution because things don't necessary evolve to become more “complex” in every way.
Snakes evolved from lizards in part by loosing their legs -how would that not be part of that evolutionary process? Isn't evolving to loose legs in a narrow sense be evolving to be “simpler”?