[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> it has accomplished.  Random sequence can account for what Dembski   
   >>>> calls specification.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is a quote from Google:   
   >>>> William Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design (ID),   
   >>>> acknowledges that natural selection is a real process that can   
   >>>> produce micro-evolutionary changes or adaptations within species.   
   >>>> However, he argues it cannot explain the origin of complex   
   >>>> biological systems or the diversity of life (macro-evolution), which   
   >>>> he attributes to an intelligent designer.   
   >>>> END QUOTE:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution.  We just had a   
   >>>> discussion as to whether Neanderthals were a different species.   
   >>>> There are physical differences, but it is a matter of opinion as to   
   >>>> how much is enough to make that claim.  Most of their DNA split off   
   >>>> from modern humans 800,000 years ago.  They were more closely   
   >>>> related to modern humans than that because some Homo left Africa   
   >>>> around 500,000 years ago and got absorbed by the Neanderthals, so it   
   >>>> makes Neanderthals more closely related to modern humans than are   
   >>>> Denisovans.  When has enough micro evolution occurred in order to   
   >>>> call it macro evolution?   
   >>>   
   >>> Many creationists accept microevolution (probably a majority?), e.g.   
   >>> Darwin's finches. This is the standard ID position.   
   >>   
   >> The denial is just stupid at this time.  Your continued support for   
   >> the ID scam creationist denial is just a dishonest manifestation of   
   >> your desire to support your religious beliefs with something that is   
   >> never going to support those religious beliefs.  No matter how the   
   >> diversity of life came into being it was not Biblical.  That is the   
   >> end of that story.   
   >>   
   >> The standard position goes way beyond Darwin's finches.  The AIG has   
   >> ambulocetus on their Ark.  In their museum they claim that all cat   
   >> kinds evolved from one original pair of cats that were on the Ark even   
   >> the sabre toothed monsters of the ice age that occurred after the   
   >> flood. These lineages of cats are as divergent as humans are to   
   >> orangutans. humans are in the great ape kind.  Dog kind is just as   
   >> divergent. Biblical creationist have made their decision about how   
   >> much micro evolution can occur and it makes humans into the great ape   
   >> kind.  Just as Behe has no issues with humans and chimps sharing a   
   >> common ancestor. The genetic distance between chimps and humans is   
   >> well within the genetic distance required for cat and dog kind.   
   >>   
   >> How much micro evolution is too much?   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Therefore, you're begging the question by asserting as fact that   
   >>> macroevolution is essentially microevolution + time.   
   >>   
   >> The cat and dog kinds requires macro evolution (species level) to just   
   >> be a lot of micro evolution.   
   >>   
   >> All the existing species could not have fit onto the Ark and be fed   
   >> and cared for, for a year by 8 people.  The AIG even want extinct   
   >> kinds on the Ark, and they just claim that they did not survive or   
   >> evolved into something else.  Whales have the breath of life, but they   
   >> did not make it onto the Ark, but the AIG think that ambulocetus was   
   >> on the Ark. Ambulocetus is the four legged cetacean (the walking whale).   
   >   
   > This is a fundamental issue. For example, as you know, Behe (and other   
   > ID proponents I think) accept some degree of common descent. So even   
   > just within ID there's not a consensus position.   
   >   
   > Taking a meta-view for a moment, it seems that someone on either side of   
   > the origins debate (simplifying as binary positions) can regard the   
   > opposition as either:   
   >   
   > 1. Having some validity, given the nature and complexity of the science   
   > and merit of some of the opposing claims and deductions   
   >   
   > 2. Having no validity, and instead regarding opponents as either   
   > ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.   
   >   
   > Dawkins opts for the latter. And you?   
      
   YEC anti evolution has absolutely no validity in this day and age, and   
   ID perps like Behe and Denton acknowledge that fact.   
      
   You have old earth anti evolution recreationists like the Reason to   
   Believe ex IDiots, but they can't make that work within their literal   
   Biblical understanding.  Even their recreation notions require whales to   
   have been recreations of terrestrial mammals (they have to explain the   
   whale fossil record), and that is inconsistent with their desire to have   
   whales among the first sea creatures created during the 5th period of   
   time that occurred before land animals were created during the 6th   
   period of time.  They started claiming that it might be possible for the   
   Bible to just not have mentioned previous creations, but they seem to   
   have stopped that, likely, because it would be more support for   
   biological evolution.   
      
   Anti evolution creationists like they have at the AIG and reason to   
   believe are ignorant, stupid, and dishonest.  You have to be all three   
   to be anti evolution at this time, and have had to deal with reality.   
   Ignorance and stupidity, just isn't enough to account for the behavior.   
      
   Just look at how your origin of life gap fits in with what we know about   
   life on earth.  How could you believe that some god was responsible for   
   the origin of life on earth over 3 billion years ago and not understand   
   that biological evolution is just another fact of nature?   
      
   Eukaryotes (us) first evolved as microbes from bacterial origins over 2   
   billion years ago as the last of the three extant groups of life   
   (bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes) to evolve.  Eukaryotes nest within   
   archaea.  Eukaryotes evolved as microbes into plants, fungi, and animals   
   for over a billion years until multicellular life evolved. There may   
   have been multicellular animals for around 400 million years before the   
   Cambrian explosion that occurred within a 25 million year period over   
   half a billion years ago.  Whales would not evolve from terrestrial   
   mammals until around 50 million years ago.  The reason to believe   
   creationists are just out of touch with reality and have to lie to   
   themselves, just like you.  The AIG has ambulocetus on their Ark.  It   
   takes more than ignorance and stupidity at this time.  You could try the   
   insanity defense, but what good would that do?   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Nothing to see here folks.   
   >>   
   >> That describes your argument.  It is the reason that you have to be so   
   >> dishonest in your support for the ID scam.  Decades of willful   
   >> ignorance is responsible in your case.  You have no excuse.  You   
   >> watched all this happen, and you just refused to understand what was   
   >> going on when it was happening.   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The issue though is not what fraction of the possible protein   
   >>>>>>> space life has explored, but rather how explorable is it? E.g. is   
   >>>>>>> it sparse plains with occasional local maxima, or is it a rugged   
   >>>>>>> terrain of endless valleys and ridges? In either case, the maxima   
   >>>>>>> will be mostly undiscoverable to incremental search relying on   
   >>>>>>> incremental improvements each conferring survival advantage   
   >>>>>>> sufficient to drive the associated mutation to fixation in the   
   >>>>>>> population.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Your adaptive immune system would not work if the search   
   >>>>>> parameters were what you want them to be.  Biological evolution by   
   >>>>>> descent with modification works because the space that needs to be   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)