The imagery of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters has been successfully used to argue for the chance emergence of life in analogous manner to the chance production of a Shakespearean play by the primates.
A real-life experiment involving 6 monkeys for a month produced 50 pages of gibberish and not a single one-letter word as defined by space-a-space or space-I-space.
Extrapolating from this, the chance of a Shakespearean sonnet being produced was calculated at 1 in 10E690, or 1 with 690 zeroes behind it.
This is claimed to be many times greater than the number of sub-atomic particles in the known universe.
If the random output of a fourteen line sonnet is so unlikely, what then the chance construction of DNA, the exceedingly complex building block of life?
These observations led prominent professional atheist Antony Flew to claim rational justification for acknowledging the existence of a supreme creative intelligence: a non-denominational version of the common person’s God.
Can such a conclusion be rationally drawn or must it remain a leap of faith?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/one_flew_out_of_the_atheists_nest/?view

Atoms stick together because of electric charges and magnetic fields
on their surface.(I know they don't have a real surface).
Heat makes the atoms jiggle about.
They can bump different other atoms 1 million times a second.
There are thousands of millions in every liter of matter doing this for millions of years.
It only has to happen once for any combination of atoms to be self reproducing and life EVOLVES from there.

I wonder how GOD came into existence as he is much more complicated than Earth life.
Has he come into existence yet?.
I don't think so.

Troll.

The typing monkey hypothesis is flawed and misleading.

If you keep only those bits that are Shakespeare and eliminate the rest, the chances rise astronomically.

That's how natural selection operates. Nature keeps the successful random parts and dumps the rest.

We have done this here before the typing monkeys ,and boy have we done God over and over again.
My evidence for man making God is the very many different Gods we made.
Every one yes every one is crafted to be just what those who made him/her needed.
I understand some of the best people in every country are followers of their God.
But am concerned so very many convince themselves their God is the one true God all others false.
Many even kill [most have] in the name of a God.

One thing most people fail to grasp is just how long 4.5 billion years is. Give those monkeys a few billion years and I bet they could come up with way more than Shakespeare.

The extreme complexity of life we see today took a hell of a long time to get that way and the numbers, if you actually look at them, allow plenty of scope for life as we know it to have evolved.

Statistically we have been very lucky. To have the perfect planet just the right distance from just the right sun and all that. We are very lucky to be the only, as far as we know, sentient life in our corner of the universe.

But also statistically it was bound to happen. There are so may stars and galaxies and planets out there that one (or more) planets with just the right conditions for life to form were bound to exist eventually.

Just like the fact that it is statistically extremely unlikely that you will win lotto. 8,145,060 to 1 for Oz Lotto. But someone always wins dont they. Statistically improbable events do happen and always will given enough time.

So no the numbers arent against the chance emergence of life, indeed the huge numbers involved in the age of the universe make it more likely for really improbable things to have happened. Who knows there may be much stranger and unlikely things out there than just the emergence of life.

I can't believe someone was stupid enough to think that you could prove anything by sticking a computer in a cage with 6 monkeys.

Why-ever not Bugsy, have you seen whose been elected lately?
Common-sense is most uncommon.

Maximillion,
I don't think you need to look that far away have you seen a teenager's SMS lately? or maybe read a news Murdock news paper?
No one said that evolution necessarily meant improvement of the species for proof of that then look at the politicians. Intellectual Darwinism survival of the most adaptive not the smartest

REVEAL THE MISSING LINK's
replicate_or_explain
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305
chance had nothing to do with it[neither did evolution]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/monotrememm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme#Taxonomy

Mammals,belong to the Class Mammalia.

The Class Mammalia,in turn,belongs to the larger group known as the vertebrates(animals with backbones;also called the Phylum Chordata).
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Mammal

Mammals(formally Mammalia)are a class of vertebrate animals whose name is derived from their distinctive feature mammary glands,with which they feed their young...also characterized by the possession of sweat-glands,hair,three middle/ear-bones,and a neocortex region in the brain.

Except for the three species of monotremes(which lay eggs),all mammals give birth to live young.

In some ways,monotremes are very primitive for mammals because,like reptiles and birds,they lay eggs rather than having live birth.

The mammalian line of descent..[is speculated to have]..diverged from the reptile-line at the end of the Carboniferous/period.GIVE PROOF

The majority of reptiles would evolve into modern-day reptiles,while the synapsid branch[speculativly]led to mammals.GIVE PROOF

For this reason,the Monotremata are considered the sister group to all other mammals.Living monotremes are classified in two families, the Ornithorhynchidae(platypus family)and the Tachyglossidae(echidnas).

In echidnas,the egg is carried in a pouch on the female's belly until the young hatches,at which point the barely-developed young must find a mammary gland and latch onto it for nourishment.

In the platypus,the female retires to a burrow in the bank of a river or pond.The burrow is lined with dry vegetation,and there the eggs are laid.

Male platypuses are venomous,courtesy of their crural glands.

Platypuses use electroception to locate prey by detecting electrical fields.This is a very rare stunt among mammals.

Never mind the cloaca.The genetics of platypus reproduction will blow your mind.Not only is there multichromosomal meiosis;a male platypus carries a chain of five XY chromosome pairs,XYXYXYXYXY, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototheria

Mammals(Class Mammalia)are a group of vertebrates that includes about 5,000 species

The Class Mammalia is further broken down into the various orders of mammals which include:

Monotremata(egg-laying marsupials)
Marsupialia(marsupials)
Insectivora(insectivores)
Chiroptera(bats
http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/09/monotremata.html
Monotremes defy the English word mammal,which implies breasts,or at least nipples...Well,monotremes make milk but don't have nipples.

mammals derived from the verb meaning suck

i speculate genomic evolution is fraud[regardless of how many darwinian apes pushing random buttons]

There are millions of stars out there and millions of planets going around them. There are quadrillions of molecules on each running into each other all the time. Give this mix 4 and a half billion years and something had to come out of it. The fact that Homo sapiens was spat out then end of this time is the most clear evidence for the lack of any ‘intelligent’ design.

Agronomist<<There are millions of stars out there and millions of planets going around them.>>yes..but we are talking about this star, and these planets[and moons]of which but one has life..as a proven certainty

<<There are quadrillions of molecules on each running into each other all the time.>>so we are talking about molecular life..genesis by randon collision.. sort of reminds me of the abgensis no one can validate from the last debate on abiogensis... then as now it is a speculative statement [that begs for proof],have we such proof?

<<Give this mix 4 and a half billion years and something had to come out of it.>> i would hesitate to ask how long this universe egsisated [in your mind]from the big bang[that ever looks less likely]that perhaps has had 13 billion or so odd years to create us in this moment in time[noting humans claim to have 'evolved but less than 100,000 years ago, and that apes egsisted for over half a billion

i wont rehash the facts we didnt get sorted out last time[re evolution into new genus NEVER having been recorded or observed[or how the species varies within its specie mean, but they are all as you know unresolvable[or if resoplved remain unreplied at that last topic posting

<<The fact that Homo sapiens was spat out then end of this time is the most clear evidence for the lack of any‘intelligent’design.>> my dear brother please present your proofs?HOMOsap proves just what EGSACTLY, natural selection[evolution of SPECIES?]your a trained scientist, give ius some faulsifiable science FACT of evolutionary process

if fact prove it

if ...''for the lack of any 'intelligent' design'.. prove it

im so sick of people pretending 'natural selection' is a science validation..[or any valid proof to explain that..which at best a hypothesis],..or maybe a theory...[but definitivly not science fact]

see a previous respondant 'dared' to say yes but if someone kept the right bits...lol,..that would instantly refute the monkeys doing it by natural selectivity...[chance]..if 'NATURAL' selection how come no new ape species selected..[man is definitivly [taxonimicly not ape]at best a common ancestor is HYPOTHOISED[theorised]

KMB,

It doesn't work like you have posted for Monkeys or 747s. There are a series of selection processes. Each stage with shorter odds.

O.

Great post, OUG. It's hard to decide which has more authority: a century of rigorous scientific analysis, or a collection of Bronze Age folk tales.

The implications are profound.

OH sancho...[such clever wit,but so few facts]

but the thing is there is too many facts that have nothing as valid proof,...here is the last post on the topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

please feel free to present any of the facts rebutted there..here again...lol

please reveal what the 100 years of rigorous research has revealed?...lol

oliver mendel[a priest discovered mendelic inheritance[mendelism rebuts evolution[just as study of darwind finches reveals that the vairiation of darwins finches only ever evolved finches

[and worse for you evolutionists,further study reveals the vairiations recorded are not progressive but waver according to seasonal vairiations[but allways between the species mean]

you will no doudt have read of the trilions of fruitfly breeding generations that have NEVER evolved a single not fruitfly..[even your hero[darwin,ok he is mine too]..but he wrote evolution of the species NOT GENUS,

its evolution of genus that your evolution godheads call evolution[but as repeatedly proven]...NO SINGLE GENUS HAS EVOLVED FROM ANY OTHER GENUS

in the last debait..we heard how bacteria mutated into bacteria[how ringspecies of seagulls evolved into..[wait for it SEAGULLS],,lol,we even covered the lack of fossils[mainly in the species into new genus level..lol]the missing links between genus..lol

its sad really how useless the real facts are when egsamined[how clear the fraud of evolving genus really is [even your acclaimed bird /lizard has been revealed fraud,..as has your neanderthal[but its a great story to sell to kids[thus you too were conned..as a child]

you think the fact is proved[but the sad truth is is a flawed theory]go ahead read the link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

feel free to read all the evidence,..please feel free to present your proof...[but clearly your a arm chair theorist parroting rot,..you have been conned into believing..[sold a godless evolving/theory]

but my mind remains open[despite 30 years of breeding many species i am yet ready to hear your PROOFS[not your wit],..go ahead bring your proof...lol

dont just accept lies and deceptions as fact
do your research[validate/PROVE your theory]

as i said earlier replicate,it using your science..[if science it really could be claimed to be...lol]...its a fancyfull theory...[get over it]...stick with comedy..evolution is a joke

One Under God,

One of the problems you have OUG is that you see things in black & white.
Unfortunately, reality is rarely so clear cut – usually, it exhibits gradation.

Representing species as insular & immutable is a more a teaching aid than a refection of reality. In an undisturbed natural system you’d more often than not see a whole series of closely related and intermediate forms.
http://www.rafonda.com/interbreeding_between_species.html

Likewise, there is not life & non-life, with a ruddy great Chinese wall down the middle . There is a slow gradation from life to
non-life forms with every variation in between. We draw a line in the sand – at another time we may draw the line some where else .
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/

Under one God,

The "Theory of Natural Selection" is indeed a theory - hence it's name.

I eagerly await any definitive proof of an alternative explanation, based on equally compelling scientific evidence of course.

Casting doubt on one theory does not automatically prove another.

Agronomist:
I know this is not the present subject of discussion (sorry KMB) I thought to pass this on to you (remembering the X factor you mentioned)
maybe you know the url already.Hope this finds you well.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GeneTherapy.html#SCID-X1

So THAT'S how you spam a forum like this. Well done.

I saw a show a while back about the probabilities of us actually existing based on chance. Which is what it is if you consider that if electrons, neutrons, protons and stuff running a fraction faster or slower things just wouldn't line up the way they are.

THEN, consider the chances of actually being in existence on this planet based exclusively on evolution. You'd need an infinite number of parallel unversii(? lol) just to get the moon sitting in the right spot.

The flip side of that argument is that, well, it DID, and here we are. But all it would take is a MINOR chance in the force and we de-exist. Interesting stuff, but gives me a headache.

wobbles yes rebutting one system dosnt validate an other,..but the thing is the current one is wrong..[but fooling people into thinking its right..[is more wrong]

quote from the seed link>>To qualify as fully alive,a system needs three basic features...Life needs a container;..it needs a way to encode and replicate information;..and it needs a way to capture and use energy.

..each feature depends on the other two.Our DNA can only survive inside a cell membrane,and it depends on our metabolism to power its replication.But membranes depend on our DNA in turn to encode the proteins that can build them.

To make metabolism possible,the cell stores its energy and the genes to encode the necessary enzymes.Genes and membranes depend on metabolism to provide their raw ingredients.

In the past, scientists have joined together two parts of the triad at a time.And only now are they starting to join all three.For Bedau, to witness this last milestone will offer the opportunity for a close inspection of life’s process—one that may reveal more than we expect.

Does it benefit science to abandon these working definitions,these milestones of life?Is it even possible?Can scientists make any progress without them?Will their search toward a theory of life advance more quickly without them?

Cleland,for one,thinks so.By arguing that scientists abandon definitions of life,...she doesn’t mean that they should throw their hands in the air....“Some scientists view my arguments as leaving them with nothing to constrain their search,but I don’t think that’s true,”says Cleland.>>...i can only agree

one of the first steps will be to realise natural selection is a buzz word...[so full of generalised idiocy as to be scientificlly meaningless]

so much more;,..IT is so poluted with buzz-word non-answer it serves very litte by way of finding the real answer

the evoltion tree need pruning..[but its not a tree its a forrest]even some sci-en-trysts are seeing it,..the current theory of evolution is a deceptive lie..[the real truth must[can only]begin when everyone gets the lie,...not accept the current evolving rep-lie as true

Evolution, natural-selection, call it what you will, it works.
Humanity has been proving it for millenia, with our domesticated animals.
When we breed for characteristics or temperament, we are emulating Nature, and evolving our animals to our own ends, aren't we?
Works for me.
No-one to my knowledge has offered an alternate working hypothesis, a detectable, verifiable, logical theory to explain the world of Life we inhabit.
Apart from some mysterious "Greater Being", who handily is also unprovable, but must be taken on "Faith". On top of which, those who do refute evolution thus claim it's unacceptable for the very reasons the rest reject god, because they claim it must be taken on trust(faith)!
Goose and gander springs to mind.
There's far more evidence for Evolution than there is for a god!

Maximillion.

There are animals reserves throughout the globe that are millions of acres in size where the animals survive how they've survived naturally for millennia using the same 'evolutionary' - (in the literal, not theological sense) - survival of the fittest techniques. But those reserves have fences, with controls.

Same can't be said for us?.

[selective breeding like/to/like isnt natural-selection]...selective breeding isnt evolution..evolution claims fish evolved into humans...but cant prove..how this occured.

they postulate..a mudskipper'evolved'into you...apostulate some cow/like creature became a whale..[but its all theory]

they dont have any faulsifyable[scientificlly]valid proof,..are too clever to declare faulsifiables..[a theory that if proven untrue invalidates their theory]..[they say it will become clear next year..lol..[take the next course..[but then they box us into ever more specialised areas,...and the big picture of evolving genus never gets explained..[BECAUSE IT CANT BE]

YES<<we breed..evolving our animals to our own ends,aren't we?>>

breeding species is not breeding genus!..[dogs are of the wolf genus[cannus],yes we can breed canus to canus[but we cant breed felinus[cats]into canus[dogs]..thats the lie of evolution

<<No-one..alternate working hypothesis,a detectable,verifiable,logical theory.>>YET..you believe a lie,because NO ONE ever can

science PRETENDS an answer[but their answer is a lie..[it dosnt matter if you know how the web works,..because its here and works fine[we can claim it works like this or that..[but if we believe this and thus ignore that WHAT IF THEY LIED,..why do they lie,?..till you can see the lie,..you cant see why they want you to believe the lie

science sell's us on the omnipotance of science[but its a theory,..only pretending fact..[a white coat tells us[sells us]on whiter than white..[tells us a cure for cancer next year[lol]..its because science wants to be the god replacement

[science wants consumers,who accept global/warming when science says it is or global/cooling when science says it is..[but really its a lie upon lie..[sold by gullible to the guiless]SEE THAT SCIENCE must be taken on "Faith"...TOO

<<Goose and gander springs to mind.>>peas in a pod comes to mine

<<There's far more evidence for Evolution than there is for a god!>>
not once you look at the proofs[or know to test the proof]..you reject personal witness for a few fossil fragments..[you judge[on faith]...one fruit more believable than the next on the few fruits you have tested..[taste them all]..

your taking evolutions faulse-fruits on faith[its just a new religion]think of it that way[see dorkins thinks he is jesus]..their followers think they are god..same same..[ask saint darwin]

Our ancestral past can be traced in the same manner trackers use broken branches and footprints. DNA and mDNA are time machines. Cosmologists can tell the age, distance and composition of a star by reading its signature. Likewise, geneticists can read chromosomes and genes.

Our genes can be traced back not only to the common ancestor of humans and other (we “are” apes) apes, but to early mammals, reptiles and bacteria. In fact you and I still have a reptitilian brain structures beneath our mammalian structures. We are part lizards.

Behaviourally, we only became a clearly differentiated animal, after were left the hunter-gather life for agrarianism and husbandry. Here, Civilization is a response to the ecological changes subsequent the melting of the Ice Caps at the end of the last Ice Age.

Humans were the animals best placed to handle being pushed inland from the flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates delta. Our ancestors developed farms away from the flooded rivers. Several societies have developed myths around the archaic memory of the event. Genetic Adam existed, 30,000 years before the flooding, not a few Biblical generations.

If a religionist retorts to claim the flood event was divinely orchestrated, remember the Ice Caps were formed 20,000 years before Noah’s “sinful” peers. In which case, because time does not exist for God; God is using foreknowledge to diminish the gift of free will.
“Our DNA can only survive inside a cell membrane, and it depends on our metabolism to power its replication. But membranes depend on our DNA in turn to encode the proteins that can build them.” On Under God” – OUG

OUG, you have described the evolved mechanism only. The first statement is true for our extant DNA. The second statement is only true for extant DNA. In Discovery Science Channel demonstration scientists, simulating early Earth environments, created a cell membrane independent of DNA, which did corral amino acids. The proto cells had a different chemistry.

No, OUG. I agree with you!

The theory of evolution is the master key that ties together dozens of other scientific fields that once seemed disparate. It as an elegant and simple explication of the extreme diversity and yet fundamental similarity of life on Earth, it is completely predictive under all circumstances, and concerted attempts by the greatest minds of the last three generations have failed to even dent the central hypothesis.

But so what? As you and I know, there are some data at the fringes which cannot be observed, so it remains a theory. 99.99% accuracy means there's a 0.01% margin for error, which is the same as 100%! Evolution is a lie!

Since evolution is a crock, there is only one other plausible explanation: the Great Cat Queen, Maeve, created the universe last Thursday and, in Her wisdom, gave us memories of a longer history.

Those who are faithful will be recieved into paradise next Thursday.

Amen.

Sancho,

Thursday's no good for me as I have made other arrangements and still need to get my affairs in order.

Is there another sect I can join that insists it's happening on Saturday?

(Love your work)

UOG<<yes..but we are talking about this star, and these planets[and moons]of which but one has life..as a proven certainty>>

Confirmation bias. You don’t know of any other planets with life, so assume there are not.

UOG<<so we are talking about molecular life..genesis by randon collision.. sort of reminds me of the abgensis no one can validate from the last debate on abiogensis... then as now it is a speculative statement [that begs for proof],have we such proof?>>

See the Urey-Miller experiments and the Oro and Kimball experiments.

UOG<< i would hesitate to ask how long this universe egsisated [in your mind]from the big bang[that ever looks less likely]that perhaps has had 13 billion or so odd years to create us in this moment in time[noting humans claim to have 'evolved but less than 100,000 years ago, and that apes egsisted for over half a billion>>

Universe 13.7 billion years old. Earth 4.5 billion years old. Assume you need a firm surface and ideal temperature range for evolution to occur.

UOG<<i wont rehash the facts we didnt get sorted out last time[re evolution into new genus NEVER having been recorded or observed[or how the species varies within its specie mean, but they are all as you know unresolvable[or if resoplved remain unreplied at that last topic posting>>

Species and Genus are artificial human constructs in our attempt to order the world around us. The process of separation happens so imperceptibly, that you wouldn’t notice a new species being formed until some thousands of years afterwards.

UOG<< my dear brother please present your proofs?HOMOsap proves just what EGSACTLY, natural selection[evolution of SPECIES?]your a trained scientist, give ius some faulsifiable science FACT of evolutionary process

if fact prove it

if ...''for the lack of any 'intelligent' design'.. prove it>>

For lack of intelligent design try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders Prove these were intelligently designed.

Thanks for the link eftfnc. It is too late for me now, I (or more correctly, my wife as what I do doesn’t matter) will not be having more children. If we had known what the mutation was at the time and if there was a gene therapy to repair it, we would certainly have considered it.

KMB,

Your monkeys on typewriters analogy is so wrong in so many ways.

The random allocation of letters in a sonnet does not get to 1 e690 so the calculation you quote is cr*p. Either you or someone who told you made it up.

This is another example of the pseudo scientific drivel trumped up by the proponents of creation and ID.

As how life started exactly 4.5bn years ago is going to take some time to unravel, so until then, calculating the odds is pure conjecture.

Democritus,
I don't take credit for the monkeys on typewriters analogy. It is nevertheless often used to validate the concept of the chance occurrence of life and was not "trumped up by the proponents of creation and ID".
I likewise don't take credit for the calculations of the chance of arriving at a Shakespearean sonnet as 1 in 1E690.
These are attributable to physicist and Christian apologist Gerry Schroeder so I wouldn't immediately discard them as "pseudo scientific drivel" as you have done.
In fact I decided to work it out for myself.
Schroeder based his calculations on 488 letters. He must have been conservative because my word count on the sonnet he chose "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?" revealed 508 characters or 622 including spaces.
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonn01.htm
Nevertheless going with his conservative count and his conservative assumption that the keyboards contain only letters and hence only 26 possibilities we have 26^488 which equates to 3.2e+690.
I guess he was being conservative on all counts.
If we take the actual number of keys on (my) keyboard and include spaces we arrive at 88^622 = 2.9e+1209, a number even more mind boggling.
Where I do agree with you is that "calculating the odds is pure conjecture".

Calculating the odds is pure conjecture KMB, because you use very dodgy data to arrive at the conclusion. Six monkeys with one computer in a cage does not a datapoint make.

The monkeys theorem was given an infinite amount of TIME, the keyword being INFINITE. The estimation of sub-atomic particles in the universe is a red-herring. And the whole random thing is flawed because it presupposes a finished product that has to be exactly what is wanted as a predetermined exact thing, not what you would actually get given random processes. Example: you are asking for a "Shakespearean sonnet", so it has to be something extremely specific popping out of the other end. If you got something by Keates or Shelley, or a sonnet not written by Shakespeare or it even produces something that has not been written by anyone in living history (but could still be classified as a sonnet), you wouldn't be happy would you? But it lowers the odds somewhat.

How many indivisible time units (say, Planck time?) have there been since the beginning of the universe in which the total of sub-atomic particles previously mentioned have had time to interact. These are large numbers. Six monkeys on a computer for a month ain't gonna cut it. I mean they didn't even have coffee!

sancho>>..0.01%...margin for error,which is the same as 100%>>..99.99 is crock..in gap-fossils alone there is 90 percent-gap..[plus..those claimed to fill some gaps are lies]..say 5%..declared there is still hundreds not declared..[flipping great/gaps bro..[thus no-where near 100 percent..lol]


agromist<<Confirmation bias...You don’t know so assume..>>..right just as evolutionists..'dont know'..[but they are happy for fools and children to believe its a done deal...lol..if it aint so DONT say it's proved.

<<See the Urey-Miller../Oro and Kimball experiments.>>you put up no link..im not searching for your proof...[they the same as you posted last time?]

<<Species and Genus are artificial human constructs>>..i know that, but the barriers between genus have real validation..[interbreeding is only one sign of species]

<<process of separation happens so imperceptibly,>>..ok give me an..in current transition,..living esample..[a gap/species in between one genus and the next..[just give me one link]..name one.

<<For lack of intelligent design try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders Prove these were intelligently designed.>>mate thats error in trancription[nothing to do with evolution]..ok you have errors[that can be hidden[we call them termial resseive..[fatal if homogenous]..but in hetrogenus able to be pased transgenerationally,hiden and usually to no affect..[and not evolution in the proper sense]

but they are errors..[no-one designes errors...,they happen,.. but the real process of'natural selection'and'survival of the fittest'eliminates the bad gene errors...[its not proof of evolution]..nor is my use of them..but..to make the clarification

i will repeat my question<<..HOMOsapion proves just what EGSACTLY,>>natural selection..[evolution of SPECIES?]

your a trained scientist,
give us some faulsifiable science FACT of evolutionary process

if fact prove it

if ...''for the lack of any..'intelligent'-design'.. prove it..[dont quote your words back as if i spoke them]..your link of genetic sports..[read mutants]..dont cut it,its not any evolution ..[read survival of the fittest;..by'natural-selection']..that kills off its next generation?...[or burdons it with defective error?]...thats much like iradiating fruitflies that gets..[suprise suprise FRUITFLIES mutants,yet only fruitflies!

ps i recall somthing re your last response,to eftfnc

..dont recollect what the problem is,..thus seperate my comment's from your problem,..if leukemia..my search result

http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=leucumia+cures&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

ok..none of my buisness,..but science/fraud hasnt helped find its cure...[most is out and out fraud]..vitamins and high alcaline body ph cures most disease

Wobbles, the Saturdarians are a primitive cult which is destroying our society from the inside thanks to multi-culti moral relativists, the liberal media elite and socialist Krudd policies. And feminists, of course.

Only deluded secularist fail to see that embracing the spirit of Maeve is the true path to redemption, later this week.

OUG, a thousand time yes...lol! The [they think they..are] "scientists" are hiding [perhaps...lol] data to fool us...lol! They are part OF THE SAME...lol...PLOT to deny Maeve WHAT is HERS...lol!!

KMB,

1. I will try again. Evolution does work the way you think. There is are series of small steps, each with shorter odds.

2. By your reasoning Shakespeare did not and could not write a sonnet, because in 12.6 billion years; the age of the Universe; there was insufficient time.

Alternatively, his brain was a product of evolution, permitting the entire Collected Works to be written.

O.

Sancho,>>..The[they think they..are]"scientists" are hiding [perhaps...lol]data to fool us...lol!>>...oh poor sancho,im talking about medicine cartel machinations[to out beloved agromist,in relation to a sickness that aflicts him[not you,hardly a joking matter

<<They are part OF THE SAME...lol...PLOT to deny Maeve WHAT is HERS...lol!!>>...may seem funny but isnt even worthy of response...

so i fished out a quote that covers you


mark twain..quote>>..peoples beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten 2 de hand, and without egsamination..., from authorities who have not themslves egsamined the questions at issue, but have taken them[at second hand]from other non-egsaminers,..who's opinion about them are not worth a brass farthing..>>

dr .L .horrowitz>>less than 3 percent of dna's function involves protein manufacture;..more than 90 percent functions in the realm of bioacoustic and bioelectric signaling..>>..of course you didnt know the 2 de quote..[because your teachers didnt know it to tell you[because between the two of you[teacher student]both accept the fairy story as sold to you

you have no idea of truth or faulsity of evolution..[by your own words your ignorance on the topic is revealed]..have you ever bred a single beast or creature,..have you bred a single test of your theory, you have absorbed the opinions of faulse gods,..been decieved and even in your deception reveal your complete ignorance of the topic

do some research

[stop making inane oversimplistic over-statements of evolving concepts you barely comprehend]if you have proof put it up ...[post your first hand research...lol]

it is easy to pretend higher standing ... based on belief in others truth..[but come on sancho's put up some facts mate]

your numbers/game and wit are funny..[but mate].. science is serious business..when science decieves it results in life or death..

time to take the topic seriously...your faith in faulse gods and lies allows frauds to con people into blind faith..via evolution other quacks in white-coats become believable...

you been tricked,..but worse you chose to remain ignorant about it..
[but science has earned your faith]..lol

[..but ...you may have sold out to a lie]

till you test the facts yourself you will never know

KMB

The monkeys on type writers analogy I personally have only heard from proponents of creationism and ID precisely because it is so inappropriate.

The particular sonnet I chose had fewer letters, but If you combine sufficient letters you can get to 1 e1000000 etc.

However, this is not why I called it pseudo scientific drivel.

The combinations of carbon (organic chemisty) are far from random, and the conditions of early earth when replicated have produced basic amino acids, even in a beaker over a few hours.

Combine this with the fact that some proteins (see prions) are self replicating, and the process starts to look more a natural sequence of events.

Until the process is fully understood the analogy of the monkeys banging away on the type writers is closer to the creationists postings.

KMB>>..agree.."calculating..odds is pure conjecture".


OLIVER>>KMB,...Evolution does work the way you think.>>ok so with the two statements side by side,we agree,..but then..

QUOTE>>..series of small steps,each with shorter odds.>>....shorter odds with higher complexity?..mate its out and out nonsense..[i expected better from you bro]

please comprehend..short steps is micro/evolution,that occurs within the species levels...[yet evolution claims genus evolution...[if in these''little''steps..then there must be more intermediate..[between genus,than intra/genus]

this absurdity demands proof...[clearly if only because of the huge shortage of genus gap fossils..[by your rekoning there should be more..lol..[the clear fact of thier rarety rebuts your error..[little steps]..before it even evolves your point

evolution evolves its theory..that need creates the mutation,that then gets sorted via a natural?..lol..selection process,..the fit survive..[thus a fish evolving shoulder blades and legs from flippers,..gets to cover speculativly billions of years..[the required numbers prove it an absurdity]

quote<<By your reasoning Shakespeare did not/could not write a sonnet,..time>>

and by your reasoning it was written word by word as it evolved from random words into the evolved final form..[but as it gets closer to the final score it changes;evolves at an ever greater rate ..lol..

yet it is unchanged since its final shakingspear's rewrite..evolution[even the movements and gestures of the actors seem frozen into its finality of murderous form]...ok i conceed a few micro adaptions by some actors but essentially his plays remain specificlly in the species of the form shakingsprear did finnally evolve his plagerised works into

<<Alternatively,...>>...interesting an absurdity can have an alternative that seems logical..[isnt that a debait teqnique?

[postulate an absurdity against a trueism?]anyhow his brain did evolve[as human speach concepts and words evolved into descriptive meaning

[but it was only crafted into vile of the act with the bile of the word to fix the concepts into the human phyci]..by those loving the violence in it..[sort of dis-spelling out the vile spell of it..[to retain and retrain the human love of its inherant vile]..

de-evolution if you will...but i have wandered away from the evolving numeric darwinian/ape topic into shaking spear-isms... gone from rebutting error to rebutting collusive demonic spell..[ing

One has to wonder at the frame of mind of the religionist, if they keep hammering away like this.

KMB, rest assured, no-one is out to burst your bubble. We are quite comfortable that you believe in divine intervention as your catch-all rationale for the existence of the universe, if that's what makes you happy. All we atheists really want is that you keep your funny ideas to yourself, and don't keep making laws for the rest of us, based upon your fantasy.

This numbers-game argument is fallacious, and you know it. We are constantly uncovering clues as to the origins of life on this planet, and one day we may even find an answer that covers all the bases. However, simply because this journey is not complete, it is not realistic to say "there you are, the numbers don't add up, therefore there must be a God".

We humans have a propensity to examine and explore. Far more than monkeys, as it turns out.

In fact, I suspect that if you were to be able to look inside the brain of a monkey, you would discover the a primitive version of the religionist's thought process: I can't understand it, therefore a God must be involved.

When I was about eight years old, I found the whole concept of the universe extremely confusing. The idea that I didn't have to think any harder about it than "God did it" was therefore extremely attractive.

Over the years that followed, it became increasingly obvious to me that this was merely a convenience, and that the more challenging - and fulfilling - approach was to accept that there is no simple answer, no catch-all response, that is intellectually complete and satisfactory.

Personally, I consider it more intellectually honest to keep learning, than to abandon the enquiry in favour of a man-made interpretation of ancient mythology.

But again - why all this concern about how we atheists deal with the absence in our world of your God? Are we somehow a threat to you?

Be honest, KMB. This isn't really about monkeys, is it?

KMB

There are about 1 e1000 000 000 genetic possibilities for humans or between 2 individuals about 1 e10 000 000. (these figures could be out by a factor of a billion or so).

Using your argument, ergo we cannot exist. As I haven't yet disappeared in a puff of logic, the anthropic principle might apply here.

That 98.5% of the DNA sequence is "junk" and completely non productive, would indicate a somewhat chaotic generation, and if due to intelligent design, that God had had a somewhat heavy night before creating.

ERROR: "I will try again. Evolution does work the way you think. There is are series of small steps, each with shorter odds." - Oliver

Should read:"I will try again. Evolution does NOT work the way you think. There is are series of small steps, each with shorter odds."

I forrest does turn into a house. Yet external forces can make a forrest several houses. There are steps.

OUG, I stopped reading your post when I got to "microevolution". That's a made-up termed used by creationists to divide reality into two parts - the bit that's real and the bit that fits their beliefs.

Mind you, it'd be entertaining if fundamentalists used it to attack other fields of science. How about micro and macro mathematics, where 1+1 = 2, but 1000000+1000000 = Jesus?

Shadow Minister..QUOTE>>That 98.5% of the DNA sequence is"junk"and completely non productive,...>>lets say 1.5 percent makes recognisable enzines etc[as to the rest science hasnt figured out yet]...lol

..much is spoken about't'cells''knowing''what body part to'make'[..that is in your 98.5%..your evolution scien-trysts dna termed junk;..they just havnt figured out yet,what that junk do do..lol]

Oliver<<Should read:..Evolution does NOT work the way you think. There is are series of small steps,each with shorter odds.">>ok lets accept that at face value..[this time]...AT WHAT STAGE egsactly does the..small..[micro]/..step..[evolution]..lose the ability to breed with its source genus?

what does this inbetween genus mate with?..[im takling about your half ape half monkey..[or your coldblood;half fined fish mating with the half legged first warmblood mammal..


SANCHO quote<<OUG,I stopped reading your post when I got to"microevolution".>>>google the term[it had over 3/4 of a million hits last time i googled it[see;last debate]

<<..That's a made-up termed used by creationists to divide reality into two parts>>>..mate read up see my response to previous poster re his micr[small]evolution[steps]... see one of you evolunnytune-lot understands the micro steps..[the others dont]

see bro'small-steps'[micro-evolution]..[within a species is completly comprehensable and logical..[its a survival mechanism from the survival of the fittest..[but it only works for species capable of interbreeding..[search the darwin finches link]

where micro-evolution in darwins finches varies.. from season to season[in dry-times a shorter/harder beak is needed[in wet-times a longer-beak[thats a micro/evolution..[small-step]...get it?

<<the bit that's real and the bit that fits their beliefs>>much seems to depend on which side of the debate the idiot..[legal term..signifying imbisile]..sits on.

<<How about micro and macro mathematics,where 1+1 = 2,but 1000000+1000000 = Jesus?...>>...mate your math is as bad as you knowledge about evolution,jesus is a known[sayX]with a speculative unknown[sayY]thus jesus =x+y..[even so ye shall call him emmanuel]god within us all]

but that has nothing to do with you presenting your fact[im presuming by your blase use[abuse]of his name..you dont even believe,but then what you believe is so inexplicably loose,..so as to not make much logic whatsoever

but this seems the norm with those taking evolution on faith

Pericles,
I merely posed the question whether belief in intelligent design can be arrived at rationally, as Flew claims, or whether it can only be arrived at by faith...
"Can such a conclusion be rationally drawn or must it remain a leap of faith?"
You wrongly conclude that I have a religious belief. I don't.
Theists start from the assumption that there is a god.
Atheists start from the assumption that there is not a god.
Agnostics such as myself start from the assumption that we simply don't know, so you don't have to worry about bursting my bubble.

Under One God, the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953 was one of the most famous experiments in chemistry. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/Bio3183/allen/samples/Tenbarge/the_experiment_1.htm http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/8975.html

The later Oro experiments are less well known, but equally interesting.

More recent stuff here http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html

God Under One said: “mate thats error in trancription[nothing to do with evolution]..ok you have errors[that can be hidden[we call them termial resseive..[fatal if homogenous]..but in hetrogenus able to be pased transgenerationally,hiden and usually to no affect..[and not evolution in the proper sense]”

What absolute tosh. The sickle cell allele persists in populations of people in Africa despite the homozygote being thoroughly debilitating, because the heterozygote gives a significant survival advantage on being infected with malaria. When incidence of malaria goes up, the frequency of the allele will go up, when the incidence of malaria goes down, the frequency of the allele will go down. http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html That is evolution in response to natural selection. An intelligent designer would hardly concieve of constructing such a system. Evolution does, because it has to work with the variation that becomes available.

Speciation is simply an accident of evolution, a mere sidelight if you will. When populations accrue enough genetic differences that they can no longer successfully interbreed, humans call them different species.

KMB, a belief in Intelligent Design cannot be arrived at rationally.

OUG,

There is no such thing as a half-man, half-ape intermediary.

Contemporary primates, we humans included, evolved from a common ancestor. Divergence happens, because of speciation, via gamete and autosomal variation.

DNA from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and macaques show a short divergence time after a “massive inter-specific hybridization event” in the ancestry of the humans and chimps. Wakely, Nature 452, Volume 457, Issue 7231

Animals more so than plants do have closed genetic systems. Yet, selective processes do sometimes operate to change animal chromosomes and the (revised) animals can reproduce (unlike a mule).

Patterson et al (2006) have measured the genetic transformations via the DNA of primate species. Recalling DNA is a time machine, Patterson et al (2006) note, the X-Chromosome divergence occurred in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

O.

Oliver:
"short divergence time after a “massive inter-specific hybridization event” in the ancestry of the humans and chimps."
First of all, to hybridise with success means continues crossing of different species with similar attributes.(coming to mind NOT 'the mouse and the elephant') Secondly the DNA of species (as is now proven) can be altered by shifting to (species specific)uncommon food areas and breeding thereafter. So following that theory, if two different type species (say monkeys) both left their natural feeding grounds and converged on the new feeding ground and their DNA changed closer to each other (maybe back toward their common ancestors' DNA) and interbreed, it would produce a new type.Right? All this could happen within a few generations.

agromist<<..Urey-Miller/experiment..experiments in chemistry.>>yes chemestry is facinating..[trouble being a chemical isnt life...i know thats hard for you comprehend...but the key-word in the heading is LIFE..[ie the_emegence_of_LIFE,..while/chemistry is interesting it isnt biogenesis...lol

<<re sicle-cell..evolution in response to natural selection.>>..lol..again/clutching at straws.. as you said..<<the heterozygote gives a significant survival/advantage on being infected with malaria.lol..>>..seems a nice gift..lol?..so this one mutation..you_yourself_selected..has a logical/reason for being..lol

<<the incidence of malaria goes down,the frequency of the allele will go down.>>..sounds like an auto-feedback-loop,..NOT evolution,but logical addaption,..a remedy arrived at by needs/based survival selection...SURVIVAL work's with..any variation that helps species/survival.

<<Speciation..an accident of evolution>>..no it is an selective advantage,..selected from the species-genomic/compliment,that allows those with the advantage to breed

<<When populations accrue enough genetic differences..they can no longer successfully/interbreed>>..stuff and nonsense..[look at the species of dogs,genus[or chickens or ducks or rats[or fruitflies]..lol..humans call them different/species...YET..they all inter-breed just fine..

only with..genus/divergence=non-fertile/breeding..[ducks cant mate with cats because they are divergent in GENUS]

<<KMB,a belief in Intelligent Design cannot be arrived at rationally.>>your responses reek of desperation..[rationality dont seem to be working for you evolutionists]

OLIVER<<Divergence happens,because of speciation,>>no mate it happens because of some physical/inherant advantage..[that selects advantagious traits that aid survival,that creates a neo species

<<Animals more so than plants..have closed genetic/systems.>>mate put a horse with a zebra[or a donkey,..animals interbreed[heard of the lion/tiger;liger..[but plants generally dont..[you got it backwards[..lol..[funny how nurseries have hundreds of plants not interbreeding

<<selective/processes do sometimes operate to change animal chromosomes>>no my brother its things like faulty/sepperation/transcription of dna[crossover]or mutation caused by sticking together bits of dna..[and other chemicals that stop genes from switching on or off or at the right time

<<Evolution does,because it has to work with the variation that becomes available.>>..MUTATION?..it works with what it has to work with[the ammasing thing is it works as often as it does

<<Speciation..an accident of evolution>>no speciation has nothing to do with evolution..[it has to do with genus limiting the genus it can viable procreate with..[as well as the cenus it cant

OUG,

There are three known forms of selection: natural, sexual and genetic. Research in socio-biology over recent decades would suggest genetic variation is up there with natural selection. Hamilton regards genetic selection the most significant, wherein animals and plants are a mere by-product to the genetic progression. Changes happen at a genetic level quite apart from natural selection. These changes have been empirically studied, mapped and the mathematical models reviewed. The results of these models are the independent arbiter on these matters.

Perhaps I should have said the development speciation in the new species.

When I mentioned closed (verses opened systems) I was referring the ability to achieve mutation. Generally, with animals, mutation occurs pre-zygotically. Plants work on a different (open) system, which Mendel exploited.

Eftfnc,

The article I read from Nature adopted the term “hybridisation” from another source and then went on to discuss genes, leaving the topic behind. What you say makes sense to me, but I am not a geneticist. (I work on the effects of cultural antecedents on knowledge discovery.)

The geneticist, Bryan Sykes states that the primate common ancestor lived about six million years ago. In the case of humans, genetic Adam lived 59,000 years ago and genetic Eve140,000 years ago. That is, the source of a common Y-Chromosome and common mitochondrial DNA did not start with the same mating. From the perspective of DNA we are merely conduits.

I'm not so sure, KMB.

>>I merely posed the question whether belief in intelligent design can be arrived at rationally<<

No-one "merely" poses a question.

Only religious fundamentalists bring up the topic of Intelligent Design. Neither atheists nor agnostics can be bothered with such trivia.

Only born-again christians bring poor old Antony Flew into the argument. As if an old man of eighty-six having a last-minute each-way bet with God proves anything.

A glance at his rationale says it all:

"It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence."

The argument of the eight-year-old again. If I can't understand it, it must've been God wot dunnit.

To stretch that into a claim of "rational justification" is to make a mockery of the English language.

>>You wrongly conclude that I have a religious belief. I don't.<<

I beg leave to doubt that.

Apart from the indications above of both religious fundamentalism and born-again Christianity, there are your occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam. Religion usually only is of concern to the religious, is it not?

For a professed agnostic, you show a remarkable number of religious symptoms, KMB.

Incidentally, KMB, I meant to ask you about a statement in your opening post.

>>The imagery of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters has been successfully used to argue for the chance emergence of life...<<

It made me wonder where you discovered this argument to have been successfully employed.

The use of this particular imagery - that here was an atheistic theory, ripe for destruction by a true believer - further pinged my "here comes another evangelist" antennae.

You have to admit, it does all rather point the same way, don't you think?

KMB

Any search for answers either personal or in general needs to be done in a rational manner.

Scientists are perfectly open in admitting that they don't have the answers to everything.

That species evolve is now pretty much beyond dispute (excluding religious fundementalists), the origins of life itself are buried under billions of years, and fossils of bacteria are unlikely.

The process of solving this mystery is to try and emulate the steps from base chemicals to a viable form. Mankind has only just started on this journey which will likely take many decades.

To try and prove ID by taking pot shots at this process so early on is like trying to shoot down a cloud. Disproving "it" is impossible without knowing what "it" is.

In fact without a smidgeon of evidence that a higher power exists, the only recourse the theists have is to throw stones at anything that suggests that life could exist without god. As they are generally ill equipped for this purpose their arguments usually end up as nonsensical spluttering (see UOG)

To cut to the quick, your posturing as an Agnostic is undercut by your posting of typically irrelevant techo babble that creationist delude themselves with.

Pericles,
You argue that my “occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam” are symptomatic of my religious fundamentalism.
The foremost anti-Islamist in Europe Geert Wilders does not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
The murdered critic of Islam Pim Fortuyn did not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
The murdered (by an Islamist) critic of Islam Theo van Gogh did not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliation.
“Virulent” critics of Islam, ex-Muslims Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina et al, do not, to my knowledge, profess any religious affiliations.
You seem to be engaging in the oft-used strategy of leftists, liberals and progressives:
If someone does not embrace atheism they are religious fundamentalists.
If someone criticises Islam they are Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists.
If someone criticises homosexuality they are either homophobes or, more likely, repressed homosexuals.
Other than that your argument is very convincing.
Now where did I leave that Bible again?

It's true Pericles, you don't have to have be religious to be an uptighty righty.

Now, what about us getting back to learning what monkeys with computers have to teach us about intelligent design?

Oliver>>There are three known forms of selection:..>>..selection for what?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:selection&ei=z1PlSbHuApiIkQWb26DYCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[selection means choice..signifies a choser]..lol

<<genetic variation is up there with natural selection.>>..up there is a vague non reply..[genetic vairiation is a result..[natural selection a way..your mixing nouns with adjectives

<<Changes happen at a genetic level quite apart from natural selection.>>..agreed



<<I should have said the development speciation in the new species.>.again you mix up cause with result

<<ability to achieve mutation.>>..again a vague abstraction[mutation is chance[achievment usually a concious goal achieved]

Pericles..<<Only religious fundamentalists bring up the topic of Intelligent Design.>>tell that to horse-breeders using their intel to breed a faster horse..lol

<<Neither atheists nor agnostics can be bothered with such trivia.>>..im sure scientists intelligently designing gmo are all antigod..[thus your oversimplification stands rebutted

<,To stretch that into a claim of"rational justification"is to make a mockery>>...i feel the same re GMO

Shadow Minister..<<Scientists are perfectly open in admitting that they don't have the answers to everything.>>..TELL THAT TO THOSE WHO FEEL THEIR TEACHERS ARE GOD,somehow the main propon-ants of evolution regard it as a fully proven fact!...lol[but it remains a theory!]

<<That species evolve is now pretty much beyond dispute>...yes micro evolution WITHIN a genus is valid...[BUT MACRO into NEW genus is fraud

<<the origins of life itself are buried under billions of years,and fossils of bacteria are unlikely.>>..no doudt there is some primevil oooze that holds their fossils too...[science just isnt trying to find the proof[because they know they wouldnt be allowed the publish the real truth..[genus stasis]

<<Disproving"it"is impossible without knowing what"it"is>>..egsactly thus those claiming authoritively evolution..use their own words and meanings...[knowing the average folower dont know his genus from his species]

<<..of evidence that a higher power exists,>>..funny that i see all life as proof..[you see all life as not proof..lol..[i only ask what proof is proof you cant validate?..cant replicate..cant scientificlly prove..has no faulsifyable fact...[thus isnt proof[only a loose collection of facts and valid sciences..cloaking the fraud of evolution og genus

<<nonsensical spluttering(see UOG)>>..present proofs[dont reply rebutal with insult..[if you have fact present it]..failure to present real fact proves your lying..[or lied to]

Hmmmm. Your ducking and weaving is also fairly typical of the breed, I'm afraid KMB.

>>You argue that my “occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam” are symptomatic of my religious fundamentalism.<<

Look again.

I suggested that only a person concerned with religion would rail against another religion.

"...Religion usually only is of concern to the religious, is it not?"

No fundamentalists were harmed in the formation of this sentence.

You also choose to put words into my mouth, which is "an oft-used strategy" of people who find themselves on the wrong end of an argument. You accuse me of proposing that...

>>If someone does not embrace atheism they are religious fundamentalists.<<

Nope. Look again.

I said that...

"Only religious fundamentalists bring up the topic of Intelligent Design."

But if the cap fits...

More words ascribed to me by you:

>>If someone criticises Islam they are Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists.<<

Nope. Look again.

I wasn't talking about criticism, I was talking about virulence. Here's a (genuine) sample of your words.

>>...Muhammad was a terrorist who beheaded his enemies and raped their women. Oops! I hope I didn't offend anyone.<<

And the phrase was, again, "religion usually only is of concern to the religious..."

>>If someone criticises homosexuality they are either homophobes or, more likely, repressed homosexuals.<<

I don't believe you will find any references to homosexuality in my posts, KMB, so why bring it up?

You're not a gay Christian by any chance?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

KMB seems to subscribe to all the odious antipathies and dumb prejudices of fundamentalist Christianity, without the excuse that it's because of his/her religion.

Pray tell, KMB - how is this the case?

You're getting flogged here, KMB. If I were you I'd pull a Boaz and create a new pseudonym to dodge the humiliation.

Pericles, (CJMorgan and Sancho),
And here was me thinking I was winning this debate.
Thanks for setting me straight!

<<Apart from the indications above of both religious fundamentalism and born-again Christianity, there are your occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam. Religion usually only is of concern to the religious, is it not?
For a professed agnostic, you show a remarkable number of religious symptoms, KMB>>

Surely one can reasonably deduce from the above that "You argue that my “occasional outbursts of virulence against Islam” are symptomatic of my religious fundamentalism"?

<<”If someone criticises homosexuality they are either homophobes or, more likely, repressed homosexuals.”
I don't believe you will find any references to homosexuality in my posts, KMB, so why bring it up?
You're not a gay Christian by any chance?>>

I was referring to the “oft-used strategy of leftists, liberals and progressives”. Your reference to “a gay Christian” proves my point.

<<I wasn't talking about criticism, I was talking about virulence. Here's a (genuine) sample of your words.
“...Muhammad was a terrorist who beheaded his enemies and raped their women. Oops! I hope I didn't offend anyone.”>>

The statement of mine you quote is well substantiated and only the "truth is no defence" crowd could object to it. Your taking offence only further confirms your leftist, liberal and progressive mindset.

Not that I for a moment think you’ll be bothered with fact-finding because I realise the liberal mind doesn’t work like that, I’ll nevertheless post the following links which substantiate what I (and increasing numbers of ex-Muslims) know about Muhammad:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/04/12/honoring-wafa-sultan-video/
http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html
http://www.politicalislam.com/principles/pages/five-principles/
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam

Go on, at least watch the Wafa Sultan videos at the first link, I dare you.
She is an ex-Muslim who likes to “whack-the-mozzies”.

But, KMB, truth is something that is accurate, and preferably demonstrably so. Something doesn't become true simply because it satisfies you. As pericles' reference to your previous posts demonstrates, your attitudes to Islam and homosexuality are phobic and territorial, and completely untainted by any perspective other than religious extremism.

As Kipp noted in another thread, you seem to have an extensive collection of articles from extremist media, decrying all the things you're uncomfortable with. I understand that the world must seem unbearably chaotic to you without the firm and simple answers provided by Christianity, but if you read a bit more widely you might find that it needn't be so frightening after all.

One God Under, all life is just chemistry.

agromist<<..all life is just chemistry.,,>>
amasing statement

so death is when the chemical reaction stops or pauses ?
or at death all chemical activity stops
[what about hair that keeps growing for days[or the chemical action of putrification[the stink dead emit

the inferances of your singular bold statement is many fold,

chemistry is elements,just eliments [or just the reaction of the elementals

like the periodic table,lists the chemical elements,so a single elimeant,reacts with another element, ie chemical reaction..[say an acid upon limestone[and you call the reaction life?]...lol

so how does natural selectivity [nat selection work its chemestry], i can agree that chemical is a part of the story but..all is a slight egzaguration,

i agree that sight is by chemical action initiated ontyo chemical receptors[reportedly] but the act of nerves is electric, kiran photopgraphy has photographed nice fields of affect radiating from living cells ,but i guess thats just the biological chemical reaction and heat is just the chemical by product

how fdoes the survival of the fittest chemical fit in [or the vitimin or ammino acids [are they on the elimental table?, i dont know im seeing some huge gaps implicite in a simplistic statement[but see i did give it serious study[because i am really intrested in such stuff

i suppose our acts are all by reason of chemical's using us as vessels to refine chemical's, that really intelligence is only so chemicals have their rule over life

its just too simplistic

[i expected better from you, i wish i had studied chemistry more , but seems the elemental table is still full of gaps[mising many of the life units [compounded or differentiated ?..chemicals] implicite in your simplification

Under one dog,

There is no question that humans can control breeding intelligently. The term "intelligent design" is a phrase that creationists use to decribe something that they can't understand, so god must have done it. This is the idiot principle that Pericles was refering to.

You also shot yourself in the foot with your ignorance of bio chemistry.

The human body is a large group of co operative cells with different properties. The death of the brain will eventually lead to the death of all the cells, but many continue to live on for a period as their oxygen and nutritional requirements are low, i.e. the chemistry continues.

KMB

Your homophobic posting can be found here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779&page=0

shaDOW MINESTA>>Under one dog,>>indicates you dont care much for god, but we both realise this[what you dont realise is you been sold a godless theory by the high priests of evolution[who have not ever made or created life, yet dare to speculate how genus beats genesis, how speciation validateds their genus-ification]

where i have the teachings of darwin,levi and hollander[as well as the religious versions of the same...you got the faulse gods

see you high priest dorkins is a neo order stooge, who basicly is the evolutionist version of christ, you devour his texts as holy,your fellow deciples preach the same as any religious preacher

you take on the faith of evolution[just as much as any religionist], but because its called science..[despite only being an unvalidated THEORY,..you and yours claim a higher ground[despite standing,one foot in the see and the other on the land, yet realise it not

<<The term"intelligent design"is a phrase that creationists use to decribe something that they can't understand,>>just as natural selection is a buzzword that cover's the spin of evolutionists, ignorant that'natural'means nothing relitive to science methodology..lol

<<so god must have done it.>>is as ignorant as nature did it by natural means..[you having no scientific comprehention of just what..'natural'selection means...lol

<<This is the idiot principle>>that is an idiots excuse,
debateable point ..not validatable science fact



<<You also shot yourself in the foot with your ignorance of bio chemistry.>>..you shot yourself in the butt,..by your ignorance and use of natural... to be definitive in claiming a science

i repeat replicate..[then speculate]
if science present you sciences validation,..not speculations

name the first life,..name its next [first]evolution[specificlly [scientificlly]reveal the science

then repeat that you claim by science method

give me your science faulsification's..
if it is science..prove it
failure to name names means your science is fraud

[however believably or authoritivly claimed
its just to create believers in a god free sham

God One Under, I said life is chemistry, that is a subset of chemistry, not that chemistry is life. Death is also just chemistry.

Indeed you should have studied chemistry more. If you had, you wouldn’t be having this discussion, making yourself look like a fool.

OUG,

The elements in the Periodic Table combine to form molecules. Organic molecules are complex. Earthly life is solely based on the element Carbon. Carbon is on the Period Table.

Edwin Schrodinger's famous paper "What is Life?" notes molecules are required to lend system stability. Molecules alone do not bring about change. Change requires energy from outside the system. Changes in the configuration of valencies are resolved by interaction of binding-energies and thermal energies at different temperatures over time.

Life is a biochemical process, which for us all-too-briefly, manages the second law of thermodynamics in our favour. Metabolism allows us to achieve this end. The entropy of the total system of which we are just a part still obeys the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

O.

agromist<<..I said..life is chemistry,>>ok..lets read back....[..you left out one word]..your real/words were...quote<<..'all life is just chemistry.'..>>

words are sacred..[sacred/words=s/words]
lets..find/out what;..'just'means..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:just&ei=pnzmSerFIMSHkAXy5JCoBw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Definitions of just:..merely:..and nothing more....precisely:..indicating exactness or preciseness;

now you say..its<<..a subset of chemistry,..not that chemistry is life.>>..lol..ok search..'subset'..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:subset&ei=O33mSYXBE8mSkAWq8fSgBw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

<<a set contained within another set,..The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion;..group of things or people,..all of which are in a specified larger group>>..ok so chemicals are part of which un-defined..uber..[yet un-named]..master-group..lol..game..set..and match?

<<Death is also just chemistry.>>..it that the whole set now?...lol

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=amino+acid+chemicals&btnG=Search

<<Indeed you should have studied chemistry more.>>indeed had you studied agronimy more ...you would be able to explain evolution...lol....If you had,..you wouldn’t be having this discussion,..making yourself look like a fool...claiming to be an agromist yet spruiking on about chemicals...lol..

like chemicals explain evolution...lol...[had you not ingested your agro chemicals..you wouldnt have evolved your dis-ease...had you studied chemestry[instead of agronomy,..an evolving culture]...you would have known the carsonogenic chemicals you were injesting..would evolve your health into sickness..

http://actrav.itcilo.org/actrav-english/telearn/osh/kemi/pest/pesti2.htm
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/13/agro-chemical-incidents

http://www.springerlink.com/index/G8XV385U50164832.pdf

Effects of agro-chemicals on weather and climate..degradation or conversion of agrochemicals to other chemical and physical forms....These activities frequently produce an adverse impact on the atmosphere....The latter may stem from exothermic reactions between certain fertilizer.lol..but..[i cant acces the link..lol]

but here another i found for you
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfTrg6iPwoEC&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=adverse+reactions+from+agro-chemicals&source=bl&ots=sWAWOADJv8&sig=B-TW0eUrhfx2vImaaBdUR5AEm2Y&hl=en&ei=34fmSdfhEZSNkAX_3NGJBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

but for want of a nail the war was lost..[and still you justify the treason that mutated your well being,..via the ever evolving lie of evolution to the better,..as you learned last time most..[BY FAR}..mutations are bad,...killing the mutant..but you ignore the facts..[then distract the topic into a'poor'word/play on chemicals]..

admit you cant validate the evolution theory..[thus need to redirect the debate into some chemical redirect]..fine i follow your lead..but..mate..how can you have such blind loyalty..to a lie,..were it me i would be angry,..but you simply cant face the facts..you been decieved..then compound it by defending the lie,..dont you resent what they are doing and did to you?

jus prudence[jus,..right,+prudentia..a foreseeing..knowledge of a matter]
but what chemicals matter?...quote..[all is JUST chemicals}...lol...just them or just us?

que warrento[by what authority]

Thanks Shadow Minister,
I was wondering where I'd lost it.

to clarify kmb previous statement/Post Shadow Minister,QUOTE<<KMB

Your homophobic posting can be found here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779&page=0

i allready replied to his other statement...<<Under one dog

There is no question that humans can control breeding intelligently...The term"intelligent design"is a phrase that creationists/science/evolutionists..use to decribe something that they can't understand,so god/or/science/lol..must have done it.This is the idiot principle that'Pericles'was refering to./TOO?

You also..shot yourself in the foot..with your ignorance of bio/neo-con chemistry.>>>so how come no response my brrr-other

<<The human body is a large group of co operative cells with different properties...The death of the brain will eventually lead to the death of all the cells,>>>mate your deluded..[havnt you heard of brain dead coma patient,s put out of their misery]..but your braindead is an interesting..self observation..lol

<<..but many continue to live on for a period as their oxygen and nutritional requirements are low,i.e.the chemistry continues.>>good to see your chemestry continues..lol..[body chemestry?..[when its your/poor brain-chemistry mate?..

maybe you should get that checked..[your so gullable accepting fiction's..[of evolution of species meaning evolution of genus,or accepting mindlessly ALL LIFE IS CHEMESTRY..lol

[..they are two different things..[like your brain chemistry v your body chemestry,..your posts are revealing a severe lack of brain chem,..too many chemicals[or heavey metals?,..too many flue shots containing mercury perhaps[wait till you take your tamilflue shots mate you aint seen nothing yet,..strange they CLAIM a cure,..4 years before the pigs..created swine flue.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2711#61004

aint it funny how trusting in evolution creates a trust in science[yet science trust betrays us]

[its a huge joke..now you may realise why we got sold evolution as kids,..to create faith in their drugs?..[or the quacks going to shoot them into you via gmo bacterium..[santos is satan]heard about the hybred seed 'mixup'..thats created the wrong gmo corn for drought[watch the corn futuures spike up..[gmo is the tool of evil[either poisen in our food,or gmo flue]either way we die,..a..clever catch 22

but grasping at straws to defend a THEORY,..only reveals the bias that needs a THEORY...because it dont have faulsifyable science,

feel free to try to respond