151. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #53439 by Nails on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 pm

34. Comment #52139 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on June 26, 2007 at 9:39 am

On abiogenisis. I think that life here first started out there. When we see microbes that can survive the vacuum of space or on the cooling rods of nuclear reactors as well as reentry it is obvious they can be dispersed in the dust and gas of space. Through the process of accretion they became deposited on planets. They would only survive on a sufficiently cooled planet where a surface has formed. Since life on Earth appeared so early I say this is more likely than the creation of replicating molecules here.

I think that such properties of some bacteria are an evolutionary clue to their struggle for existance - thermal vents etc. Spores are very hardy and survive even bleaching.
As for the origins of life, it is a little more complex than looking at how bacteria are now and extrapolating back 3.5 billion years.
The raw materials for life can be found throughout our galaxy, that is certain. I find it a much more logical step that life could potentially start anywhere these building blocks are present in sufficient quantities with limiting factors reduced far enough.
Oh, and a lot of time and luck.
So while a panspermian start is possible, I find it more probable that life on earth started on earth as we have the conditions and the ingredients.
Space is so vast that travel between solar systems is not really viable, the times involved would be prohibitive.
But that's my opinion.

152. A child's Darwinian revolution (Review of 'Growing Up in the Universe')

Comment #53298 by Nails on June 30, 2007 at 3:55 pm

What a review!!
By the time I'd finished reading it I could have watched the DVD!!!
Already done that, my 10-year old daughter thinks its geeky but at least she knows where we came from.
And I agree, the best £10ish ever spent.

153. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53294 by Nails on June 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
Let's not forget that after the kicking Dr. Ken Miller gave him in Dover he has retracted many of ID's claims, and it would appear his last has been ripped apart.
Shredded.
With regards to morals, let's not forget how morals change with circumstance.
It is wrong to kill, but if your life or family is threatened, most of us will kill without second thought or much remorse.
So if we got our morals direct from god we would never steal, not even steal medicine to save someone dying.
Yet these morals allow drug manufacturers to be richer than tax collectors yet receive only a fraction of the hate the latter received 2000 years ago.

154. Scientists Find Earliest Sign of Cultivated Crops in Americas

Comment #52951 by Nails on June 28, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Interesting.
I wonder if evidence of anything else older than 5000 years old was washed away by the flood?
Or eaten by the Leviathon?
On a more serious note, it is quite amazing how far we have come in the last 20,000 years or so; our cognitive abilities have allowed us to evolve beyond our original 'DNA programming'.
From nomadic hunter-gatherers to home-buying internet freaks!!
Truly amazing really.

155. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52950 by Nails on June 28, 2007 at 4:49 pm

re: JOHN LUNDBERG, evolution is one big hoax.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/evolution-is-one-big-hoax-858550.html

What utter drivel.
I sincerely hope that this piece was not printed in your newspaper.
Such views are totally incoherent and display only ignorance.
Evolution is a factual account of the diversity of life backed up by a multitude of insurmountable evidence.
To ignore this is symptomatic of a closed mind, tainted by either religious dogma or a total inabilty to comprehend anything so complicated as a living creature can have such a simple origin.
I wonder if Mr. Lundberg has any objections to the theory of gravity as Jesus is reported to have been able to walk on water - surley this is concrete evidence of holes in the theory?
Or how about the laws of thermodynamics.
General relativity? I agree that it doesn't make sense to most people but that doesn't mean its not true.
I hope the editor will print a disclaimer before the rest of the world condsiders Ireland to be a nation of intellectually stunted individuals.

Regards,

name and address withheld

Love the t-shirt, I was thinking of getting something similar printed.
Like
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Richard Dawkins
or the old classic:
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

with either the TGD graphics or RDF logo.
Can't decide.

156. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51605 by Nails on June 23, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Some points missed so far:
If she disobeyed her parents she could be stoned to death, but not if she disobeys the school.
There is nothing wrong with her stance on sexuality, and those of you who have made derogatory comments regarding her virginity should really be ashamed of yourselves.
At the end of the day, rules are rules and she has wilfully broken school rules.
Religion is no excuse for this.
What would be next?
The Chav religion with coin rings on every finger?
For right or wrong, the line has already been drawn and she has been encouraged by her parents to cross it. They have effectively tought her that her religious beliefs are above any laws and that is a very dangerous concept.
I back the school, in most cases schools should be free set a uniform and police it as they see fit. It (uniform policy) wpould have been published before she joined and that is all there is to it.

157. In the name of the Father

Comment #51591 by Nails on June 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm

He seems to think that religion is the root of all evil. It isn't. The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious

I agree.
Religion is not the root of all evil, but a major factor in most attrocities.
It is normally the part which turns a murderous act into genocide, a dispute into a conflict. The gulf between faiths is wider than the cause of any racially motivated attrocities, although many of these are religiously motivated in the first instance (KKK for example).
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutley.
Faith can corrupt.
There is no greater justification than "god is on my side."

158. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51366 by Nails on June 22, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Ob/gyn Wayne Goldner, M.D., learned this lesson a few years back when a patient named Kathleen Hutchins came to his office in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was only 14 weeks pregnant, but her water had broken. Dr. Goldner delivered the bad news: Because there wasn't enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive on its own, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would likely miscarry in a matter of weeks. But in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Dr. Goldner says his devastated patient chose to get an abortion at local Elliot Hospital. But there was a problem. Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center — and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions.

"I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." He tried admitting Hutchins elsewhere, only to discover that the nearest abortion provider was nearly 80 miles away in Lebanon, New Hampshire — and that she had no car. Ultimately, Dr. Goldner paid a taxi to drive her the hour and a half to the procedure. (The hospital merger has since dissolved, and Elliot is secular once again.)

WTF?
If it had been based on race then there would be a few doctors out of a job.
I wonder if anyone could enlighten me, exactly where in the bible does it forbid arbortion and birth control?

159. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50944 by Nails on June 20, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Oh well, if we're doing jokes....

Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the ocean, one called Justin and the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed and threatened by sharks that inhabited the area. Finally one day Justin said to Christian,

"I'm fed up with being a prawn; I wish I was a shark, and then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."

A large mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted." Lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate. Time passed (as it invariably does) and Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them. Justin didn't realize that his new menacing appearance was the cause of his sad plight.

While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again and he thought perhaps the mysterious fish could change him back into a prawn. He approached the cod and begged to be changed back and lo and behold, he found himself turned back into a prawn. With tears of joy in his tiny little eyes Justin swam back to his friends and bought them each a cocktail (the punch line does not involve a prawn cocktail - it's much worse than that).

Looking around the gathering at the reef he realised he couldn't see his old pal. "Where's Christian?" he asked. "He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy & became a shark," came the reply. Eager to put things right again and end the mutual pain and torture. He set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate memories came flooding back. He banged on the door and shouted: "It's me, Justin, your old friend, Come out and see me again." Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're a shark now, not my friend and I wont be tricked into being your dinner." Justin cried back "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed........."

(You're going to love this.....)


"I've found Cod.

I'm a Prawn again Christian."

160. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50941 by Nails on June 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I love the way he turned around a very tough question regardng quakers and extremists!!
That could have been a real stinker but he eased his way through.
The performances are getting better and more polished - if RD was a aportsman he would be considered to be on top of his game right now.

161. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50701 by Nails on June 19, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I havn't listened to it yet, but the magazine begins the article by expressing the interviwer's fears that RD is going to live up to the Darwin's Rottweiller tag....

He didn't.

Well, in text anyway.

162. A battler beyond belief: Review of 'God is Not Great'

Comment #50298 by Nails on June 16, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Just as eradicating smallpox did not cure cancer

And why would it?
It was merely one small dent in the armour of mortality.
There is no sense in this piece of 'logic'.

163. Review of 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs

Comment #50201 by Nails on June 15, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Oh, and the DVD is really good!!!
i enjoyed it more than my kids, but I guess they'll just get used to it...

164. Review of 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs

Comment #50200 by Nails on June 15, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Focus is a good mag, reviewing science and technology with a bit of humour. Much more readable and mainstream than SciAm or Nature.
http://www.focusmag.co.uk/default.asp
Latest issue has an interview with our fave prof and ask him questions from Steve Jones and other scientists.
Worth a read.

165. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49813 by Nails on June 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm

7. Comment #49401 by BMMcArdle on June 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Asking someone if they believe something is a loaded question, suggesting that it is a matter of belief, instead of something that is quite factual. No one would think of asking someone if they believed in electricity or gravity.

But neither electricity or gravity is countered by biblical claims, and that is the problem.
This is why science books don't have stickers put on to tell you it is just a theory, not a fact - only biology books.

Anyway, i clicked on the rageonapage link and decided to look for the antichrist:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-antichrist.html
Total stupidity.
I can't believe that someone with the intelligence to turn on a computer could write such dross.
Examples:
Candidates for the antichrist:

Sun Myung Moon This leader of the Unification Church openly claims to be the Messiah. Moon recently was sent to jail for tax evasion. Jesus, by having a tax collector on His staff, didn't suffer from tax problems. You pick which one was the smarter Messiah.

Yeah, so smart he let himself be caught and tortured....

Barney the Dinosaur Because John, the writer of Revelation, would never have known what a dinosaur looked like, it's logical to assume he would have identified any vision of Barney as one of a dragon. Taking this into consideration, you might find the following Scriptures quite revealing: Revelation 12:3, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon…,"
Revelation 13:4, "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"
Revelation 20:2, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

WTF? and how would anyone 2000 years ago have known what a dragon looked like?
How the hell could anyone consider a child's toy to be the bloody antichrist!!!

Bill Gates If the beast needs to be computer literate and financially well-off, then Bill Gates is a good candidate.

So what exactly has Bill done wrong then?
Donated huge amounts (was it $50bn) to charity?
Yeah, real satanic stuff that.
Losers.

166. The Great Mutator

Comment #49633 by Nails on June 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Awesome.
Ths is why we study science - because of its elegance and simplicity; also its unsightly and complicated side.
ID is pure fantasy, a self-deluded attempt to justify our supposed importance in the universe.

167. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #49139 by Nails on June 10, 2007 at 3:05 pm

* jeepyjay *

Jews traditionally had slaves because they were forbidden to work on the sabbath - so they needed gentiles to do it for them.
Funny how a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas would have forgotten that.
For what the titles worth I'm suprised anyone would value his opinion on a ball game let alone anything serious.

168. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49137 by Nails on June 10, 2007 at 2:59 pm

bloody lunatics.
but hey, look at the irony:

Forget the yin and the yang

I'll take the boom and the bang….

Don't need in touch with my feminine side!

All I want is my testosterone high.

*

The 200 men in the crowd clap stiffly

169. Is Prince Philip an island god?

Comment #49135 by Nails on June 10, 2007 at 2:50 pm

i can't think of a better deity, I've always been a fan of the Duke.
Shoots from the hip, yet his humour has never been given the praise that it deserves. Political Correctness? That's for the namby-pamby polititions.
At least he hasn't ordered them to destroy their neighbours or cut off part of their bodies....
he is also a consort and is effectively the Queen's number 2.
I do however suppose it is regretable that he has cooperated with these events but there is the posibility that they would simply choose a worse role model... like Bill Clinton.
That's not the point I know.
It's wrong but it is highly amusing

170. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #48310 by Nails on June 7, 2007 at 11:39 am

186. Comment #47179 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:49 am

Devolved, address the opsin gene link.

Yes Billy, another beautiful example of an increase in genetic information and, eventually a new gene.
Guess you won't get an answer, your article doesn't have 600+ year old men building boats to save the animals.
And it contains long words, maybe devolved needs someone to stand on a parapet and read it to him.
Or at least two or three lines that can be interpreted according to your mood.
And i have reviewed this thread and can find nothing like devolved mentioned with my name on it. Senseless mudslinging from someone who can't support his argument with credible sources.

171. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #48079 by Nails on June 6, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I'm sorry, I have no recollection of posting anything along those lines. i've had a quick look and can't find it.
Will someone please give me a link or reference number please?
The closest I have come to that is calling the bible a collection of 3,000 year old children's stories and I don't quote from it because I don't have one.
Never have, never will have.

172. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47803 by Nails on June 5, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I missed this earlier, and I hope I've read the second piece incorrectly because it has angered me somewhat:

165. Comment #46753 by devolved on June 1, 2007 at 12:03 pm

hy do I think you are all wrong? This sums it up:
"The problem is, all observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of pre-existing information; evolution requires new genes with new information. Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can generate this new information, but observed mutations have never been shown to do so. Sometimes a loss of information can help an organism so is 'beneficial', e.g. beetles born without wings are less likely to be blown into the sea. But loss of wings is the opposite sort of change to what evolution needs."

Evolution doesn't need any sort of change, it only needs to be able to reproduce.
#Bad# genes have arised by mutation and continued for no good reason (or rather, no obvious benefit to the carrier) for no other reason other than that they can!!!
It really is that simple!!!
There is no direction, no game plan and no continuity.
So when you told us that you understood evolution then you were telling porkies.

Interesting post from Nails:
"The word of my god is the true word and yours is a lie. I have a book that proves it. If you do not believe in what I say you must be evil and I will send out the armies of my followers to smite you down".

Did I write that?
Or anything similar?
I'm not an advocate of violence, intellectual argument is a much more powerful tool.
If I posted ANYTHING similar, please include a comment number, otherwise you're just dragging dirt.
But hey, most of the people you use as references have done the same.....
In short devolved: DON'T put my name to threats of violence.
Stick to the discussion without the slurs.

173. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47796 by Nails on June 5, 2007 at 2:37 pm

New genes, new information.
Vast majority of genetic change is detrimental, we all know that.
But when you have more than 3 billion years to 'play' with (as evolution has) then almost anything is possible.
Including us.
And chimps, bonobos, mice, rats, dinosaurs, moss, yeast infections and antibiotic resistance.
Multiple redundant haemoglobin genes and active variations - not relevent? Then you must have moved the goal posts.
So how about the bacterial flagellum?
Once reported as the 'key' to ID (and then destroyed) it is an example of how genetic change occurs by introducing new genes into already existing systems and wow.... variation.
Like adding a a derailer to a bike (to play with your analogy), it is still a bike so there's nothing new, right?
Just a slightly different one.
Change.
So just compare a type III secretory system with a bacterial flagellum and you will now what I mean.

174. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #46987 by Nails on June 2, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Sounds good to me.
But really you need to make a distinction of it being one short step at a time, no matter how long it takes.
Time it really the key here, when you have millions and millions of generations then small steps are all you need.

175. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46927 by Nails on June 2, 2007 at 8:53 am

Don't want to piss on your fire JRG but down's sufferers also have a lower rate of cancer because they tend to have lower life expectancies than the general population.... but you are correct in the xtra gene bits.
Extra information, which Devolved asked for but he still dismisses.
I gave another example, namely gene duplication.
We have multiple redundant copies of Haemoglobin genes as well as 3 major versions of the 'working' gene - obviously a consequence of the original gene being copied and then mutated and hence made available for the purpose of natural selection.
So we have alpha and beta chains to make our standard oxygen-carrying haemoglobin.
Yet this is also irrelevant in his eyes, nothing new or interesting even though it answers his questions completely.
I have never seen evidence that radiocarbon decay rates vary over time, I always thought that the longer period of time examined the more uniform the decay rates as it is a study in probability....

176. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46566 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 4:45 pm

The wierd thing about all of this is that the biggest face of science we see is medicine. We all trust (to a certain degree) the wisdom of our GP's and pharmacists.
So why is the researcher, the guy (or gall) who made a large wedge of this possible just sneered at like some computer-obssessed sci-fi freak.
Look at the simpsons, for example.

177. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46560 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 4:29 pm

40. Comment #46491 by flankspeed on May 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I once heard a nice statement - alas can't remember from who - that said that the most exciting scientific discoveries don't start with someone saying "Eureka! I have it!", but rather:
"Hey, that's funny..."

Isaac Asimov, I pressume.

178. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46554 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Loser.
Does this mean that, regardless of what his advisors tell him (assuming he gets voted into office) then he will consult god first?
Will he have a priest on stand-by to check verse and scripture?

"Mr President, we need to increase taxes to fund xyz"
"What do you think vicar, would god want us to do this? Is there anything we can learn from jesus to guide us?"

179. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46340 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 1:40 am

Where you post, there is a little link titled [Comment Posting Guidelines] - click here and it lists all the tags you need to make your work as pretty as mine.

Actually, that's crap, I rarely post piccies.
Can't be bothered.
If you want to look at some pretty anotated text, buy a magazine.

180. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46337 by Nails on May 31, 2007 at 1:23 am

Sorry folks, i just don't understand your scepticism.
Over the last 20 years we have learned that chimps and bonobos are as clever as a pre-school child and can recognise the rudiments of a spoken language, despitelacking the ability to vocalise themselves.
This is not canine-like, whereby they can learn a few simple commands.
They are just that one little step closer to us because of these findings and so the essence of being human is not as mysterious as we once thought. We are not alone on the planet, let alone the universe!!

181. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46282 by Nails on May 30, 2007 at 6:45 pm

145. Comment #46193 by devolved on May 30, 2007 at 2:05 pm

epeeist is evolving a sense of humour (belatedly) and writes:
"Tell us where all the water came from and where it went?
Genesis 7:11(ESV) "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened."

Yeah, like that really explains it.
Do you really believe that Noah (if he was real) actually lived into his 600's?
We're talking about the laws of thermodynamics here, energy (or matter) cannot be created or destroyed, merely transormed to another state. So where did it come from and where did it go?
Let me guess, god did it and that's all there is to it. OK.

And here's more evidence, beautifully mined for you:

Notice, for example, this description of one outcropping at Agate Springs in northwestern Nebraska: "What remains of the hill covers about ten acres. This bone bed was accidentally discovered in 1876. It contains the bones of rhinoceroses, camels, giant wild boars, and other animals, buried together in a confused mass as only water would deposit them.

"It is estimated that the bones of about nine thousand complete animals are buried on this one hill . . . Hence, it is likely that many times that number of animals were brought together at this hill and buried there by the action of water . . . This is a fact that is most important. Animals of every kind died in great numbers and were buried almost instantly" (Alfred Rehwinkel, The Flood, 1951, p. 183, emphasis added). The important fact is that this massive deposit of many kinds of animals was obviously made by a huge amount of water.

I notice you havn't provided a link but I shall take it as fact. You havn't mentioned whether the remains are still available (preserved if you like) and so can be carbon dated - given your opinions on science, I doubt you would accept the results anyway.
What remains of the hill - what is that supposed to mean? Buried by the action of water? But not underwater now but still buried. A muddy lake perhaps? Quicksand-type marsh area, a common feeding/watering ground that could trap an innocent animal? Over time (and we are now talking a few hundred years) thousands of animals could easily be buried. if this was the result of a flood, then submerged mammals can almost completely decompose in as little as four weeks - depending on temperature, predation/scavanging and tidal action of course, so you would expect many body parts to be seperated and washed away, not deposited on a bloody hill!!
Have you ever considered the possibilty that there could have been a local flood in this area?Flash flooding does happen, look at New Orleans.
Or geolicical change? You do know that the solid ground under your feet is sitting on a mass of liquid rock and can bob up and down sometimes?
My point being, geology is not static and this 'remains of a hill' may have been flatlands only a few years before it was discovered.

Rapid speciation is not only possible but an observed fact of Natural Selection: "Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the London Underground train network (and are now biting humans and rats instead), have already become a separate species." [Creation 21(2):41, 1999.]

Probably the same types of scientist who were amazed when antibiotics became less and less effective against pathogens.
just because someone is a scientist or believes in evolution doesn't mean they are clever and can use their knowledge constructively - we are all human beings at the end of the day and we all have our faults.

For Billy Sands:

Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.
However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.
This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that 'upward evolution' is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a 'proof' of evolution.

Sickle-cell anaemia is an example of Natural Selection. "Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."

Sorry Billy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.
degeneration - very poor choice of word. Change is better. If you lived an area rife with malaria 2,000 years ago would you rather be that little bit different if it gave you a better chance of survival? Oh, and praying has no significant effect on malaria, it obviously has no god.
Natural selection is all about enough variation in the gene pool so that some individuals (by luck or alternative design) can survive to reproduce and so on. Natural selection does not shuffle, re-arrange or do anything else. It is merely a concept whereby some individuals are better suited to reproduce ('fitter') than others.
Evolution is a combination effect of years of natural selection whereby genetic diversity changes over time. The genes that don't confer resistance or make you run faster will reduce in proportion compared to those that give advantages.
And it really is that simple.
Where you are confused is that you don't understand the mechanism for genetic change in the first place, you still think of chance and mutation and nothing else. This is the bit I have explained to you previously and you have ignored.
So I think it is yourself who has the concept all wrong.
Sickle-cell anaemia is not the be-all-and-end-all of evolution or Darwin's work, it is an exmple of genetic change which works. it is a great example because it displays no intelligence, no forethought and is exactly as Darwin would have predicted. There is no up or down, only change. That which survives to reproduce lives on in the next generation.
The gene, by giving the heterozygotic individual an advantage is passed on to the next generation and so survives in the gene pool - the fact that either monozygote is more likely to die is of little consequence. the system works, and I doubt that any god would allow such a system to work. After all, we are all his children and made perfect in his image, just some a little more perfect than others and if a few are fated to die by the genetic roll of the dice then hey, tough shit.

To get from a 'simple single-celled organism' to human beings requires vast increases in the information of the genome.

Absolutely, that is why it took at least 500,000,000 years (count the zeros) for this change to come about - precisely because it is the culmination of millions of years of little changes (and maybe a couple of big ones thrown in for good measure). Just because it is difficult to comprehend and too complicated for you doesn't mean it can't be true.

My last post here so read carefully please and catch up with you guys soon

Look forward to it.

182. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46268 by Nails on May 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm

144. Comment #46170 by Tyler Durden on May 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Hi lads,

I'm discussing Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with a good friend of mine (we'll call him "Dave"), he understands the basic concepts but is having trouble with the following concept:

If species X moves out of the water and onto the land for whatever means, what is the spark that moves the genes to enable species X to develop, for example, legs?

Basically Tyler, darwin's theory predicts that species X will have, over time, aqcuired genetic diversity. This means that, despite looking the same each individual will have his own genetic identity and some genes that are ever so slightly different from each other.
Most of the time, these differences matter little, but if say fish X finds itself living in shallower water due to climate change it will have to adapt or it will not reproduce.
This is the selection pressure and the species will either adapt or become extinct. Adaptation to a specific environment requires a small change in behaviour or physical characteristics; stronger fins for crawling in muddy water perhaps. Over time (remember, thousands of years are available here, the earth is 4.5 million years old!!!) these changes will amplify and eventually a change as dramatic as legs can evolve.
I'm not sure you fully grasp the extended phenotype concept though; this refers to a characteristc or behaviour of an organism that is genetic in origin (genotype) and can effect the behaviour and development or genotype of another species or the world at large.
This differs from a basic phenotype which is only the physical characteristics of a particular gene such as hair colour or blood group.
As JRG has pointed out, genes have no intelligence, they ae either reproduced in the next generation or they become extinct.
But all organisms will have some selective pressure, just because a shark or crocodile looks the same as 50 million years ago doesn't mean it hasn't changed - it may well have split into two or more distinct populations by behavioural change or just physical seperation which allows speciation, the creation of one or more new species from the original one, sometimes leaving the original to appear intact. If it is good a t what it does (eating fish, having babies etc) then if very little changes in the environment it may well change very little.

183. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46263 by Nails on May 30, 2007 at 5:31 pm

120. Comment #45989 by Philip1978 on May 30, 2007 at 1:18 am

Nails and all you other crazy scientists, thanks for that, was really interesting. I am a rather rubbish English and History student whose grasp of the Sciences is about as tenuous as my belief in god! Thanks for making what I find very difficult to understand less foggy!

Thanks for the compliment.
I am a biologist by trade but a Food scientist by proffession (rather boring and more chemistry than i could have wished for!!) and I'll be honest, I'm crap at physics, history, geology to name but a few.
The great thing about a site like this is it attracts minds, rather than single disciplines. This pool of information is of great benefit to us all intellectually.
Devolved appears to be rather an intelligent individual and I have enjoyed this little spar; i just wish I had more time to devote to it (and for him/her to answer my questions.....)

184. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46256 by Nails on May 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Sorry He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy, I don't share your opinion on this one little bit.
Nearly 20 years ago I watched a video of a chimp called Panbanisha who could communicate in this way, displaying the brains of an average 3-yer old child I would guess and I as fascinated. Especially when a chimp uses signs for 'cool-drink-box' (3 signs) instead of 'fridge' (1 sign), showing a little intuition and maybe a child-like beleif of purpose in evey-day objects.

http://www.iowagreatapes.org/bonobo/meet/

185. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46249 by Nails on May 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Scary stuff.
My biggest fear is that here in the UK, many people are being put off science because it is 'geeky' or too difficult to understand. This is made worse by tabloid misinterpretation of research (ie tiny increase in cancer rates among HRT users is reported as a major problem, MMR vaccine and autism etc.). Indeed, tabloid coverage of any science is piss-poor at best, I've seen articles calling MRSA a virus amongst other things. Scientists described as boffins.....
An then the pathetic examples we get every few months "Scientists discover perfect formula for (insert something ludicrous like bacon sandwhich or whatever) And then they print the bloody formula!!!
This is leaving people let down by science, and therefore succeptable to religion at a later age.

186. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45939 by Nails on May 29, 2007 at 5:09 pm

116. Comment #45856 by devolved on May 29, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I believe that there are now about 3500 mutational disorders affecting human beings. That would work out on average at around one mutation every two years since the creation of Adam around 6000 years ago. Of course most of you will instantly reject such an idea as ridiculous. Well here is a paper giving reasons why a young universe and earth are feasible. If you reject it without first engaging with it that's a comment on your unwillingness to consider ideas contrary to your own (a charge frequently levelled at me).

I saw nothing in the article to substantiate your claim. The mutation rate of a species is very complicated, and is better off examined as rates or a speoific coding sequence.
Those of us who have read The Selfish Gene, Ancestors Tale or Blind Watchmaker (no doubt the same topic is recounted in other Dawkins books, alas i have not read them all) will be only too aware of the evidence for this. I will not repeat them here.
But for those who havn't: Imagine a bacteria - it has a gene which spontaneously mutates. The mutation in deletarious, it results in a slightly altered version of a crucial protein and the organism dies.
Note that around 24 hours later, the deceased could have been seeing its 1 trillionth cousin being made. The numbers here are outrageous so just think about that next time you ejeculate a few million sperm - what are the odds of those carrying a particular gene or mutation? I once read that for every 7 fertised human eggs only one will prodeuce a viable offspring. The rest will be spontaneously aborted for various reasons, often befoe anyone knew the differnce. Many will have genetic instabilities caused by mutation, some due to stress/toxins etc. The overwhelming response of course is how could god allow such a thing to happen if he made us perfect in his image.
There is a much bigger, complicated picture out there which science is now exploring. Questions like this can not be answered by a 3,000 year old collection of children's stories.
When you get ill, do you seek medical (ie scintific-based) help or do you pray reeeallly hard? It's not a daft question really.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-384.pdf
I'm sorry but this article is just a joke, a collection of half-truths and mis-quotes.
I won't waste my time by analysing all of it, but I will draw your attention to one little nugget -

DNA experts #no names given - possibly 5 year olds or bishps# insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber and even dinosaur fossils.

DNA can barely survive 24 hours in a living cell, most organisms have vast resources to counter the effects of metabolsim-related damage to DNA.
And look carefully, DNA exists in strands that are millions of bases long - after thousands of years in isolation with no metabolic processes and the right protection, it is safe to assume that some strands of significant length are left intact but there is no guarantee of completeness. Bases can degrade, you know.
If complete DNA had been found in fossils then Jurrassic park would be a lot closer to home than on DVD.....
I'm really sorry devolved if you actually belive this stuff because someone is pulling the wool over your eyes and telling you that god did it.

187. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45927 by Nails on May 29, 2007 at 4:31 pm

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

Also, the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil etc.

If the biblical flood really was worldwide (wich is unlikely, and we all know it - I won't trawl for sources because I wrote an essay on this 15 years ago and it was a chore. Really boring.) then this article is suggesting it was the only flood that ever occurred.
So coal is made from carbon deposits less than 6000 years old? So why are we worrying about running out?
All we have to do is bury some trees and we have more oil in a couple of thousand years!!!

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since The Flood was accompanied by much volcanism fossils formed in the early post-Flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really were

I don't remember reading that Noah had to contend with a volcanic winter or anything like that!! Maybe you need to enlighten me on this one!!
Basically the article suggests there are problems with 14C dating (which is true) but radiocarbon dating is most often used as a reference and is used to back-up another method of dating. As I previously stated, there have been many floods and many periods of volcanic activity in the last 10000 years alone to make a correction for one specific (and probably one that has been blown out of all proportion) event.
If you want to search, try 'krakatoa' or 'Pompei' for starters.

That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age worldview that pervades academia today

The article is refering to samples that could have been 4.4 - 23 million years old. as neither of these corresponds to the biblical creation, they should both be fraudulant. But that is never stated. Some confusion here, I think.
It is possible to discard results from anything that don't fit in with known facts (or previous assumptions, as you would rather put it). Erroneous results do occur in science, which is why we tend to use multiple samples and discard those which don't fit the general pattern.

However, the 'age' is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven

Is the kettle calling the pot black here?
The old testament is a collection of stories by unknown authors from an unspecified time period with nothing to reference it to!!
Which is why many people will desregard it as heresay.
The article is critical of science as a valid provider of answers yet takes its answers from a source of questionable facts at best!!
Sorry, but I've now got bored.
There's nothing new here really.

188. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45713 by Nails on May 29, 2007 at 4:05 am

1. I can't open your link

i have edited the link - but the text should have given it away

2. All dating methods rest upon entirely unprovable assumptions. We have no way of knowing if decay rates have been constant over long periods, or how much of the original element was there in the first place, and a global flood and associated upheavals (massive volcanic disruptions etc) 4500 years ago would have wrecked the measurements. (p7 on the link below is a very simple representation of the problem)
If you want more info follow this link:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

The dating methods are not based upon unmovable assumptions, they reinforce evidence. There is a huge difference.

3. The whole goo-to-you story of evolution is contingent upon the earth and universe being billions of years old

Evolution shows us that the universe is more than 3.5 billion years old, a figure which is supported (indeed, exceeded) by other methods

4. I do not accept that there is mounting evidence. The same methods keep producing the same results. One million forged banknotes have no more value at the bank than one hundred.

Again, evolution does not require the universe to be older than 10000 years old, it is another piece of evidence that supports it!!! And it doesn't rely on geology, radioactive decay or anything else - it independantly blows away one man's poor interpretation of ancient (and ignorant) texts to arrive at a figure which is not only improbable, it is downright fraudulant. Evidence is much more powerful than interpreting a book which is the word of man and not any kind of deity.
I am not a physicist and so I have to rely on the work of others to validate this but I am happy with the evidence that I have seen. As i have already stated, the mass of evidence arrived at independantly from geology, physics and biology is worth much more than assuming one text to be the work of a supernatural being.
in short, you are the one who has a fixed agenda and your position is never going to change, regardless of any evidence that doesn't share your deluded misconceptions.
By the way, your link is tragically flawed in more ways than I could fit into a lunchtimes post - I will have to have a good look tonight and get back to you with some detail.
It was a nice piece of comedy for a Tuesday morning and will put a smile on my face for the rest of the day so thank you for that.

189. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45652 by Nails on May 28, 2007 at 4:55 pm

41. Comment #45110 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Research over the past five years in the Kelly Caves of Kangaroo Island has shown that stalactites can grow at rates of up to 1/2 inch (7mm) in four years. This is contrary to the usual evolutionist claim that stalactites grow, at the most, an inch a century and therefore any limestone caves must be very old. Such a high rate of growth in stalactites indicates that even many of the larger stalactite growths could have occurred in a reasonably short time, and therefore the caves are not necessarily old at all."

And how is geology related to evolution? The earth (and indeed the solar system) has been aged using a variety of techniques, various geological features and isotope dating to name but two. Even if your report is correct, I don't have the time to analyse it right now but it would only be a minor blip compared to the mounting evidence supporting 4.5billion years.

I appreciate that some of you will automatically dismiss these reports if I divulge the sources. Of course rejecting valid evidence on the basis that it's drawn from a source that doesn't agree with your own biases and presuppositions is as unscientific and bigoted as you can get but then this is a religious website so I shouldn't be too surprised. After all in all the posts I've made on this website I'm still waiting for a scientific critique of the information I provide. Lots of abuse, may snide remarks and lots of shallow rhetoric but as yet no science.

Practice what you preach, I'm still waiting for an answer here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1120,Jerry-Falwells-Hit-Parade,Timothy-Noah-slatecom,page4#comments
I have provided you with an idea that I can support with mountains of evidence, but I would like you to answer it please. Find something to convert me.
Dare you.

190. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45648 by Nails on May 28, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Let's not forget that Dr Winston is a man who is proud of his delusion but it has't stopped him pioneering an area of research that most religious leaders squirm about.
As far as faith-heads go, he's OK by me. I would liken him with someone who is jewish because of the culture rather than the meaning, but it obviously does hold some meaning with him somehow.

191. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45562 by Nails on May 28, 2007 at 7:56 am

12. Comment #45285 by pewkatchoo on May 27, 2007 at 4:46 am

B T Murtagh. I can concur with your position. I also am ex-military (UK) and can say that there is quite enough peer bullying goes on in the military without adding a dangerously unstable religious element too.

This is extremely serious. Do you really want a brainwashed military ready at the beck and call of the religious right. That is what you are talking about here.

I was happy to take my oath regardless of the supernatural aspect, but that was pre-TGD and I'm not sure how I'd react now.
My experience in the military leads me to believe that it will be last vestige of religion - for soldiers on the ground, a sense of community and beleif in a higher order is an essential part of daily life. I can't imagine most infantry units being the same without believing that god is on their side.
I'm not excusing it, but I have tolerated it and understand it. It's the only time in life I don't ram my athiesm down their throats.
The fact they also carry weapons might have something to do with it....

192. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #45352 by Nails on May 27, 2007 at 10:21 am

Which will come first - a reply, Christmas or the second coming?
my money's on Christmas, because the other two are just figments of someone's imagination....

193. The Blairs' Witch Project

Comment #45143 by Nails on May 26, 2007 at 2:31 pm

8. Comment #45083 by the great teapot on May 26, 2007 at 9:53 am

Does anyone understand the last paragraph?
I haven't got a clue what it means

In my mind, weapons of mass destruction which can be mobilised in 45 minutes are from the same category as creationism and Light Beings.

Basically, belief without concrete proof is dangerous. WMD mobilisation was one of the major reasons given for UK military intervention in Iraq, but hindsight has found the claims a little far-fetched.
So definately the same category as creationism.

And people who perform New Age peace rituals before initiating death/war situations remind me of those house guests who get outrageously drunk on wine, after extra portions of pudding, and then eat seeds with seaweed juice for breakfast the next morning. Washed down with a sanctimonious speech on alternative lifestyles.
No-one likes a hypocrite, especially when he preaches so far from what he actually does.

194. Adult breast-feeding sucks, authorities say

Comment #44938 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I love it.
Why didn't we think of it first?

195. The Blairs' Witch Project

Comment #44937 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm

One of Tony Blair's biggest acheivements was watching the Human Rights Act make the UK one of the most civilised countries on the world - until his wife, the human rights lawyer began getting rich on human rights technicalities.

196. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44915 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 2:59 pm

OMG, have you seen this cartoon?

www.answersingenesis.org

It's animated, give it a few seconds....
Blind leading the blind.

197. Baby's 'miracle' recovery in British hospital to give Malta its first saint

Comment #44908 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 2:41 pm

First off, congrats to the family and my best wishes to the boy.
My son is alive and well today because of the skill and dedication of two consultants and their surgical teams - if anyone deserves the highest honours man can bestow then they would be top of my list. I didn't ask for a miracle, I asked for the best the NHS could offer and have travelled to the other side of the UK to get it for him.
Anyway, back to the task in hand.

Anil Dhawan, a professor of paediatric hepatology at King's College Hospital, London, told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that there was no scientific explanation for the recovery of a Maltese boy with "devastating" liver failure.

I wonder how you could rationalise such a comment?
Surely an experienced health professional will have seen many patients beat the odds in his career?

Dr Dhawan said that he felt "privileged" to be involved in the canonisation, adding that he would be flying out to Rome for it.

Oh, there we go.
Vested interest and a free holiday.

198. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #44873 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Still waiting....

199. Woman - Blame devil for infant in microwave

Comment #44868 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

i thought that ministers harm children after they have got the job...

200. Transcending Jerry Falwell

Comment #44862 by Nails on May 25, 2007 at 12:14 pm

3. Comment #44716 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 8:10 am

konquererz claims, "they believe in a book that is full of obvious errors while saying its perfect"

Easy to say! Where's the proof?

Let's start with Genesis - methusela was how old?

Noah's ark

shall I continue?