Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by coadie

You claim to have a touch of science.

Your tissues produce a protein known as alpha-1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues & restricts them. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a workin protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin. The problem the Darwinists can't explain is the co development of anti thrombin and thrombin. "


Now go read Behe and see his take on why clotting evolution couldn't take place. This is why we heparanize a patient before putting them on the pump.

Is this the quote from Behe's book because
i mentioned Behe? Where can we find it?

[pelathais]

coadie, how you comin' on those transitional fossils and the genealogical questions I asked you?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Is this the quote from Behe's book because
i mentioned Behe? Where can we find it?

I linked to it in yesterday. It was in the interview posted at the Disco Institute.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Other Christians have shown the weaknesses in Hovind's arguments, even other Young Earth believers. Arlo Moehlenpah of the UPCI follows Hovind's same flawed "creationist" philosophy; though Bro. Moehlenpah pays his taxes and is a good citizen (and a great guy if you can ever get him off his YEC rap).

He is wiser, much more educated and than you will ever be based on the video I listened to today.

Other atheists support your arguments and attitudes.

Your name calling is what we get on Panda's thumb.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

coadie, how you comin' on those transitional fossils and the genealogical questions I asked you?

They aren't there. They are resting in your head as transitionals. Too much acid in college?

In 1977 Gould wrote,

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

In 1980 Gould said,

‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’6


Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.
Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980

pelthais asks the same questions again and again and can't handle the answers.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

He is wiser, much more educated and than you will ever be based on the video I listened to today.

Other atheists support your arguments and attitudes.

Your name calling is what we get on Panda's thumb.

The footnote in both his book and the Powerpoint slide presentation where he "challenges" radio-carbon dating methods reads:

1. a seal

"A seal?" That's one of his sources? Another is The Weekly World News. Get his book.

[coadie]

"

I never gave evolution a second thought, and certainly saw no
conflict with Church teaching," said Behe, who attends St. Therese
of the Child Jesus Parish near Bethlehem with his wife, Celeste,
and their six children. (They're expecting number seven.)

A cantor who is also active in the parish's Holy Name Society,
Behe still sees no conflict between faith and evolution, but is
nonetheless giving Darwinism more than just a second thought. He
is making waves with a newbook and a fresh attack on the notion
that mere accidents of nature can explain how human beings
evolved.

One of those Catholic Christians Sprinkled and all. He has all the church teaching even.

[coadie]

Pope John Paul, in his Oct. 23 speech to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, affirmed the teaching of Pope Pius XII, whose 1950
encyclical <Humani Generis> ("The Human Race") left the door open
to the idea of a gradual process of human evolution.

While noting this, newspaper articles gave the impression that in
Pope John Paul's remarks, religion was finally bowing to the truth
of science.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/BIOBELIE.TXT

I give up. Can't argue with popular belief.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

They aren't there. They are resting in your head as transitionals. Too much acid in college?

LOL. Never took any acid in college - any college. In fact, I did spend a year in school with your new hero Arlo. That was about the time that he really started to dabble in Young Earth Creationism. I remember feeling a profound sense of disappointment because everything about him seemed to become more shallow, philosophically.

Originally Posted by coadie

In 1977 Gould wrote,

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

In 1980 Gould said,

‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’6


Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.
Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980

pelthais asks the same questions again and again and can't handle the answers.

You still can't show why even one single transitional form from an arbitrary list fails to be a "transitional fossil" find as predicted by Darwin.

As to your "quote mining" expedition - the answer is long, and there are no pictures for you to color, but...

A more correct and complete citation is:

Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.

This is the same article as:

Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.

So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

Yet once again, this is Gould discussing "Punctuated Equilibria." It is best, perhaps, simply to allow Gould to defend himself, as he did in his article "Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Gould, in this article and many more over the next twenty years, consistently and extensively explained his position and the evidence for evolution, including transitional forms found in the fossil record. The constant abuse of the body of Gould's life's work in the face of this is not merely dishonest, it is despicable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

heparinize /hep·a·ri·nize/ (hep´ah-rin-īz″) to render blood incoagulable with heparin.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...com/heparinize

It is slang as i said.


Medical Dictionary
No entries found that match "heparanize." Please select a spelling suggestion below or try your search again

Medical Dictionary
No entries found that match "incoaguable." Please select a spelling suggestion below or try your search again.

1.incoagulable


MedlinePlus is the National Institutes of Health's Web site for patients and their families and friends. Produced by the National Library of Medicine,


look prax. We have Medline dictionaries in our general software package.
I notice it is a standard several levels superior to what you use. You have heparanize defined by another slang word incoaguables.

Between you and pelthais, you are external to the medical world and need to use merrium webster.



You guys have shown that the evolutionist and old earth agenda is a religion.

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it