Sorry for posting this late, but here's one very good source for info (there's more, but I need to go over those later). The site isn't the best, but works. It's here.
So if you want a challenge, read the material. But if you simply just dismiss the material and not read it, then I'll know how open your mind is;)
The funny thing is that I was talking about natural selection in the macroevolutionary scope, not mutations.
"The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters" - Theodosious Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology", American Scientist, Dec 1957, p. 385.
"Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones." A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (1977), p. 356
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation" - Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, 1968, p. 129.
"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species."... "It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations." - N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (1953), pp 1157 and 1186.
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, (1977), p. 88.
"If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations" - Frank B. Salisbury (Pland Science Department, Utah State University), "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene", Nature, Vol 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.
"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms as various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them; there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 67-68.
Sorry about any spelling errors - I quickly typed this from sources here. So, care to describe in depth the details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems? I'm sure with your vast knowledge that you should easily be able to do this;)
Easy. Has any modern-day living species with a half-developed organ ever been found? What would happen if an animal had a half-developed mouth (making it impossible to eat)?
"Meaningless"? I guess the new organs that were the result of progressive mutations just "appeared" completely developed, instead of developing over time.
"you obviously have no clue about what the theory of evolution is."
Actually thousands of years ago it was the scientific community that claimed that the sun revolved around the Earth, and that it was Jews and Christians who claimed otherwise. Most massive churches were closely tied to mainstream ideologies, and so had the scientific viewpoint.
>That is quite a lot of fields you have studied. I'd like to hear more. I don't know much about these things but I did study a bit of geology and biology. Please tell me more about plate tectonics. It sounds interesting. I haven't looked at mathematical statistics lately. Perhaps you could explain these figures you quoted.
Well since I'm criticising evolution, I need to study enormous amounts of information from everywhere, including from evolutionary theory itself, and also the arguments against it, alternative theories, etc. In this post I made here, I go a little in-depth with the plate tectonics issue, since some guy was making some snide remarks on that topic. With me, I'm not trying to propose some other viewpoint besides evolution; I'm criticising evolution's vast flaws, which is basically forbidden in society. Some of the material on the plates issue comes from books I have relating to it, and a lot of it comes from the creator of the Hydroplate theory, an alternative theory to plate tectonics which is becoming more accepted in the scientific community due to the fact that it explains what plate tectonics can't (a lot). Since I've got books here, I found a link here with similar information (site's not that great, but works).
>Plate tectonics? Please. It's a well proven fact. Accurate measurements from space have proven the slow movement of the plates. Are you seriously suggesting that Earth's surface, in its current form, has always been in that exact state?
Exact state? haha. I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'll give you a few hints. In plate tectonics, if plates were subducting into the mantle, mass would be needed first to be added underneath the trenches; in which an excess of gravity should be measured under trenches; but the opposite of that is found with current measurements. When trenches are formed, material must be removed to form them. Plate tectonics doesn't have any anwer to this; and a subducting plate or anything else pushing into the Earth's mantle would add material under a trench. How about the fact that plates preferred to subduct in the western Pacific? There's no explanation of this in plate tectonics. For a plate to begin to subduct under another, it needs to depress at least 30 miles (minimum thickness). Not even close to that has ever been seen. If subducting plates generate magma that forms volcanoes, then the volcanoes should lie on the side of the trench above the descending plate. The problem is that mnost of them are on the opposite side of the trenches (most of the volcanoes are on the western Pacific, which is the interior to a plate; but according to plate tectonics, they shouldn't be there lol). If trenches have been here for hundreds of millions of years, many of them should be buried, or lifted above sea level. None of these "fossil" trenches have ever been found. Why?
So do you want me to keep going? lol. Yep. Plate tectonics must be a bulletproof argument;)
>how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics
>Yes yes. You've already said that onc before. And as before I'm asking for just one credible piece of proof.
Ok, here we go. The first law of thermodymanics states that energy (the total in the universe, or any isolated part) remains constant. It also states that although energy (or mass equivalent) caan change form, it isn't being created or destroyed. With the first law, natural processes can't create energy; but energy must have been somehow created in the past by something independent of the natural universe, or cosmological evolution falls flat on it's face. Also if natural processes can't produce mass and energy, then it's almost impossible that natural processes can explain the more complex organic (or living) portions of the universe.
With the second law, if the universe itself is an isolated system, the energy available for work has been decreasing. But if you went back in time, the available energy would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe (in which the first law says is constant).
>As to all the biological "stuff". I'll just rest it here by saying that bacteria have new generations much much faster than complex organisms, hence they mutate faster.
Well, I guess I'll have to post the answer I made to other people on this:
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) would have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
>since to produce just the enzymes in one orgamism would take 10^40,000 trials
>You're using that tired old statistic from the astronomer Hoyle? Loo
Well I'll quote a post that I made to another guy:
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) would have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
>Good luck, nobody has managed it yet... which is a bit odd dontya think, it's almost as if evolution were true or something.
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) woudl have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
Yes; microevolution exists, but truly has nothing to do with "evolution" in general; due to the fact that it follows Mendel's laws, and simply requires simplistic variations among species (which we see every day). Macroevolution on the other hand requires the development of new DNA, progressive mutations, and the general transference from one species to another newer species (which has never been directly observed, and also has most scientific evidence going against it).
>Now you claim "evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol" Please provide factual, provable, scientific evidence against evolution. I'll wait here. And I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.
haha. Yep, you thought you'd be waiting a long time, but I'll give you a little teaser, since I'm guessing that you refuse all forms of criticism. Take the widely standardized Plate Tectonic theory for example. This theory is so incredibly flawed that it can't even provide answers to it's own points. And of course nobody is allowed to talk about the large amounts of falsified evidence, how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics, the absence of good explanations for symbiotic relationships, how humans are not hardwired for language, the complete absence of progressive mutations, the total absence of intermediates from macroevolution, the fact that natural selection can only decrease variations (can't produce new genes; it selects), the lack of support for the evolution of DNA, RNA and protein molecules, lack of explanations of internal organs that must be fully developed in order for a species to survive (for example, there are no species with half-developed mouths in existence; and if there were, they would die rapidly), the fact that evolution doesn't work at all with Mendel's laws, the lack of any form of observation of spontaneous generation, no proof for interited characteristics, the problem of altruism versus natural selection, two to five-celled life forms (which microevolution claims that life with 2-20 cells are transitional forms between one-celled and 6-celled parasites, the newer findings on the importance of vestigial organs, no information on the origins and organism reactions of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, no good explanations for complete metamophosis, no supporting evidence for complementary sexual reproduction (where the reproductive systems of both male and female must be completely and independently evolved at the same time and place; and if there's any slight incompleteness, the organisms would become extinct), no good information on the evolution of immune systems, 3,000 consecutive generations of fruit fly experimentations with no proof at all for increasing complexity and viability, no blends of different organisms (such as a natural dog/cat hybrid), the lack of observation of the evolutionary development of natural programs (planned sequences of steps to accomplish goals), no evidence that shows that isolated systems can increase in information (only outside intelligence can increase the information of an isolated system), the enormous amount of chains of fossil gaps that have been concluded that they will never be filled, no good explanations for out-of-place fossils, no information on the evolution of chemical barriers and buffers (which must have had to evolve at the exact time, to prevent any fatal chemical reactions), no traces of evidence at the molecular level (from genetic distances) of the sea life->mammal transition (where each category of organism appears to be completely isolated) so that if evolution happened, for example rattlesnakes would be more closely related to other reptiles (but in reality based on one protein, it was more similar to humans), the probability of mutations and natural selection produced genetic information (which is about the amount of 4,000 books) would be 0 (since to produce just the enzymes in one orgamism would take 10^40,000 trials), the evolutionary position that since bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolved, that they are simple (but fact they have some of the most complicated systems involving flows of protons ever seen), the fact that as science has progressed, "missing links" in the hypothetical "common ancestor" tree have multipled enormously, and thousands upon thousands of more problems (these are just the simplistic surface issues).
So, to prove your point, tell me how a non-living object became "living", and the chemical process that occurred during that time. I'm interested in seeing what "facts" you have;)
>A hallmark of religion is circular logic and circular myths. A good example of evolution in rapid action is the constant changes in influenza viruses.
hahaha - sorry, that's microevolution, not macroevolution (of which is what's commonly called "evolution"). So, have you seen those viruses develop new mutational abilities and physical constructions, and pass those abilities onto offspring? I guess you see half-evolved organisms every day hehe;)
I've got lists of observable data that disproves evolution (I posted small portions of it elsewhere in this discussion), but of course evolutionists will not allow any form of criticism. So, naturalism (which evolutionary theory is a part of) has been gradually turning into more and more of a dogmatic viewpoint, with very weak explanations.
>If the subject of how we came to be produces such primitive emotional outbursts in so many of us, then maybe this is less about science and more about instinct and feeling.
You got it - I've tried explaining lots of stuff on that level before, but nobody ever listens. For example, try pointing out one of the thousands of flaws with evolutionary theory. You'll get creamed haha.
Ooh! So you mean you've studied have half-evolved species (usually with half-developed organs, etc), and have seen spontaneous generation occur in a lab setting? You mean you have all the information on how immune systems evolved, and that you've witnessed the increase in complexity among consecute generations of organisms? You mean it's been proven that single-celled organisms evolved on their own with 600 protein molecules, something that has a mathematical probability of 1 in 10^450? Wow - I need to see this;)
>And don't tell me about some scientists that are religious, real ones aren't. A scientist uses logic and methods throughout their entire lives.
Yep. It's those wonderful "logic" and "methods" that conflict with scientific laws. How about the Law of Biogenesis? Or the Laws of Thermodynamics? These don't exactly work in any way with evolutionary "logic". As a matter of fact, the evidence goes against evolution in these situations. Well actually, evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol.
>"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says.
hahaha - so plate tectonics, which have "survived extensive testing", still ended up to be one of the most problematic and pseudo-scientific theories, which is over 90% inaccurate.
Yep, that's modern science for you. If it's 90% inaccurate, it must be true;)
If you think the plate tectonic theory is bulletproof, then show the scientific evidence for these elements of the origin of trenches (which it completely fails to explain with any accurate evidence): 1. gravity anomalies 2. flood basalts 3. stretched oceanic ridges 4. continental material under the ocean floor 5. fast seismic waves 6. animal fossils in trenches 7. earthquake driving force 8. tension failures 9. wide earthquakes 10. reasonable driving mechanism 11. displaced material 12. frictional resistance 13. arcs and cusps 14. concentrated trenches 15. undistorted layers in trenches 16. initiation 17. scattered volcanoes 18. "fossil" trenches
What I've seen continuously is evolutionists practically reaching a Jihad level when anyone (including scientists) criticise any portion of evolutionary or naturalistic theory.
>The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer).
Explain how natural selection can produce new genes, instead of "selecting" from preexisting characteristics. In this method, variations are reduced, not increased. The evolutionary viewpoint shows it's ugly head in the topic of mutations; first, has any modern-day living species with a half-developed organ ever been found? What would happen if an animal had a half-developed mouth (making it impossible to eat)?
Another thing - the platypus issue becomes hilarious in this, because not only does it have organs totally unrelated to it's alleged evolutionary ancestors, but evolutionists don't really have any way to explain how it came about (in light of the "gradual" transitions between variations).
Microevolution exists, not macroevolution.
>From that it moves to its second fallacy, the claim that living systems are too complex to arise from a random process. However, no mathematical evaluation of the level of complexity or the amount of intelligence required is ever made. As a matter of fact, the math was done decades ago, and it turns out that evolution works.
>Intelligent Design does not belong in the classroom except as an example of poor scientific reasoning.
Considering that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, and can't even provide even basic explanations for most of it's theories (such as the Plate Tectonic theory), it's turned into a laughing-stock of scientific "reasoning".
One funny thing is how almost every single evolutionist in schools will not allow any form of criticism of any aspect of evolutionary theory. Take the widely standardized Plate Tectonic theory for example. This theory is so incredibly flawed that it can't even provide answers to it's own points. And of course nobody is allowed to talk about the large amounts of falsified evidence, how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics, the absence of good explanations for symbiotic relationships, how humans are not hardwired for language, the complete absence of progressive mutations, the total absence of intermediates from macroevolution, the fact that natural selection can only decrease variations (can't produce new genes; it selects), the lack of support for the evolution of DNA, RNA and protein molecules, lack of explanations of internal organs that must be fully developed in order for a species to survive (for example, there are no species with half-developed mouths in existence; and if there were, they would die rapidly), the fact that evolution doesn't work at all with Mendel's laws, the lack of any form of observation of spontaneous generation, no proof for interited characteristics, the problem of altruism versus natural selection, two to five-celled life forms (which microevolution claims that life with 2-20 cells are transitional forms between one-celled and 6-celled parasites, the newer findings on the importance of vestigial organs, no information on the origins and organism reactions of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, no good explanations for complete metamophosis, no supporting evidence for complementary sexual reproduction (where the reproductive systems of both male and female must be completely and independently evolved at the same time and place; and if there's any slight incompleteness, the organisms would become extinct), no good information on the evolution of immune systems, and thousands upon thousands of more problems.
I've never seen anything in evolutionary or naturalistic reasoning that has ever been without major flaws. So would it be a crime to question these flaws? If that's a crime, then free speech is doomed; welcome to the brave new world.
-eventhorizon
I guess everybody still thinks that Piltdown Man is still pure 100% proven scientific evidence lol.
You also have to keep in mind the massive changes done to the NT kernel over the years, which are usually seen as security hazards. For example, the NT5 kernel (Win2k) had large amounts of the GDI framework placed into the kernel, which was even more than what was moved before in NT4, instead of being entirely in userspace (NT3). For example, if something exploits the GDI or window manager, it'll gain kernel-level access to the system, since the wrongly named NT "microkernel" (ntoskrnl.exe) will treat it as part of the kernel. Thus, it doesn't really matter if the user is running with admin privilages or not; the problems will still occur. Dave Cutler's (of DEC) original design was pretty good (he wrote the majority of the NT kernel core, and modelled it after VMS; other parts were modelled after OS/2), but the current incarnations of NT have possibly the most bloated monolithic kernels ever.
Isn't ECS the parent company of PCChips, the company that not only used to sell crap boards with fake cache chips (which even had modified BIOSes that claimed that the cache was real), but even had relabled chipsets and sometimes exploding capacitors? Newer boards by them are also usually flakey, mostly due to the fact that they use the cheapest possible components.
The SiS 735 chipset is a particularly interesting one. It was first previewed in mid-2001 when the DDR main board market was in the doldrums. The ALI entrant was considered a non-starter, the VIA KT-266 buggy and very late, the well-performed and stable AMD 760 was dear and in short supply, and VIA's SDRAM-only KT-133A was taking all before it. Nvidia's much-touted Nforce was still vapourware. Unless you just didn't care about the cost, a KT-133A was the only rational choice.
Then, from out of nowhere, came the SiS 735: an entrant from a firm that had all but foundered in its sudden rush to build its own fab facilities and cut ties with its former manufacturing partners, a firm that had little left but a reputation, and that a poor one. To everyone's astonishment, the SiS 735 was the clear benchmark leader, and in most respects it still was right up until the transition to 166MHz FSB chipsets began: if we are to disregard the weird all-in-one Nforce, only VIA's second-effort KT266A could beat it. SiS had three hurdles to overcome: the first was demonstrating competitive performance. This they had already done. The second was demonstrating stability and compatibility: this too was within their measure. And the third was getting mainboard makers to adopt it. This was perhaps the hardest task, as mainboard makers are reluctant enough to offend Intel by making VIA and Athlon products, offending both Intel and VIA at the same time requires more than the usual bravery. SiS chose to overcome that reluctance by making the 735 an offer just too good to refuse. It was very cheap. For a high-tech state-of-the-art DDR chipset, it was amazingly cheap.
Elite are surprisingly little-known for a company that is one of the largest mainboard manufacturers of all. They are bigger than ever since their merger with the infamous PC Chips group (the fake cache people) in the late 1990s. They made quite a splash on the overseas markets with this board, one of the very few to use the SiS 735 chipset, and once they overcame a well-publicised BIOS problem, were very successful with it. Here at Red Hill we had been very happy with our KT266A mainboards and had no need to switch, but with the Elite coming in anything up to fifty dollars cheaper than a KT266A, it would be foolish not to try them.
In the flesh, the boards had that familiar PC Chips look about then: they were alarmingly thin and very cheaply made. Our first impression was that there was no way these could be as reliable as our Epox and Soltek KT266As (or our Soltek KT133As, for that matter, for these were a dual mode board that can take SDRAM or DDR), and our past experience with PC Chips associated companies did little to encourage us. Still, we gave a pair of them every chance to show their stuff. We soon found that they were fussy about RAM and incompatible with Athlon Thunderbirds. Not a great start. From there it got a good deal worse: the more we tinkered with them in the workshop the more apparant it became that they were unstable. Quite often they wouldn't even run error-free
That's exactly the same as my viewpoints. I've used XP quite a bit on other machines, but I prefer 2000 over anything else (before 2000 came out I preferred NT4). A while back I installed XP onto my main 2k machine, and ended up spending countless hours trying to get the interface working like 2000 (and XP's "classic" look sucks, mainly because it looks far too toyish). One thing I hated was the crappy colored shell icons (especially in IE), and tried forever to replace the "new" icons with the original ones from shellui.dll. XP's explorer shell overrides the icons from shellui.dll, and that's what I can't stand.
If I ever do "upgrade" to XP, I'll have to use a different shell instead of explorer - otherwise I'll go insane lol (I'm a perfectionist lol).
2000 flys on my main machine (it's an Athlon 2600+ box with a 3-drive 10k SCSI hardware RAID0 array, 512mb ram, etc). It also runs Debian Sarge; but I also use other machines than x86's - mainly an older Mac (OS9), an SGI Indigo2 (IRIX OS, MIPS), a couple Sun SPARC boxes (Solaris), a 433mhz DEC Alpha (OSF Unix), etc.
I'm the owner of Tliquest.net, and me and the drunkenblog guy collaborated on this issue for some time now. Most of my research on the tliquest site had to be pulled due to legal threats (I don't have any legal support at this time), but he could handle being sued. About the Java player, there has been lots of speculation on what they have used. I'll post my research log right here, so you can see what still needs to be found (if we need to; unless MXS somehow comes clean):
From primary archive, http://www.tliquest.net/mxs There are 20 supposed mirrors of my site, and I'll find out where they are soon. --------- Listing of projects that VX30 has taken code from:
XviD 0.9.2 (all VX30 versions use this Xvid version) Media Player Classic (VX30 live also uses MPC's webserver) LAME (old 2004 version used version 3.93) Possibly Filezilla (found a whole bunch of error messages from it) Nero Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder Liba52 Ogg Vorbis code (it contains libVorbis, but that is under a BSD license; they haven't given credit, so it's a violation)
but - the vorbis streaming code seems to be part of another non-Xiph app
What I still don't know: -origination of Xvid encoder frontend they used for the original VX30 and later versions -origination of audio/video streamer server they used -origination of Java-based decoder client -which ones of these make up the Live Server app -which app the threaded Ogg Vorbis code is from ---------
"Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe;)"
Let me add a little info to my post - do you know what they were complaining about? Jpeg images. Of a hex editor viewing strings in their binaries. Wow that's pretty illegal isn't it? lol - I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I got that. Just like MXS's lawyer said, "these links represent illegal activity" and earlier Jim Kartes told me that what I was doing was "extremely illegal". hehe;)
Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe;)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for posting this late, but here's one very good source for info (there's more, but I need to go over those later). The site isn't the best, but works. It's here.
;)
So if you want a challenge, read the material. But if you simply just dismiss the material and not read it, then I'll know how open your mind is
-eventhorizon
The funny thing is that I was talking about natural selection in the macroevolutionary scope, not mutations.
...the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters" - Theodosious Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology", American Scientist, Dec 1957, p. 385.
... "It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations." - N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (1953), pp 1157 and 1186.
;)
"The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.
"Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones." A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (1977), p. 356
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation" - Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, 1968, p. 129.
"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species."
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, (1977), p. 88.
"If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations" - Frank B. Salisbury (Pland Science Department, Utah State University), "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene", Nature, Vol 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.
"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms as various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them; there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 67-68.
Sorry about any spelling errors - I quickly typed this from sources here. So, care to describe in depth the details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems? I'm sure with your vast knowledge that you should easily be able to do this
-eventhorizon
>What the hell do you mean by "half-evolved"?
;)
Easy. Has any modern-day living species with a half-developed organ ever been found? What would happen if an animal had a half-developed mouth (making it impossible to eat)?
"Meaningless"? I guess the new organs that were the result of progressive mutations just "appeared" completely developed, instead of developing over time.
"you obviously have no clue about what the theory of evolution is."
I guess you have no clue what I'm talking about
-eventhorizon
Actually thousands of years ago it was the scientific community that claimed that the sun revolved around the Earth, and that it was Jews and Christians who claimed otherwise. Most massive churches were closely tied to mainstream ideologies, and so had the scientific viewpoint.
-eventhorizon
>That is quite a lot of fields you have studied. I'd like to hear more. I don't know much about these things but I did study a bit of geology and biology. Please tell me more about plate tectonics. It sounds interesting. I haven't looked at mathematical statistics lately. Perhaps you could explain these figures you quoted.
Well since I'm criticising evolution, I need to study enormous amounts of information from everywhere, including from evolutionary theory itself, and also the arguments against it, alternative theories, etc. In this post I made here, I go a little in-depth with the plate tectonics issue, since some guy was making some snide remarks on that topic. With me, I'm not trying to propose some other viewpoint besides evolution; I'm criticising evolution's vast flaws, which is basically forbidden in society. Some of the material on the plates issue comes from books I have relating to it, and a lot of it comes from the creator of the Hydroplate theory, an alternative theory to plate tectonics which is becoming more accepted in the scientific community due to the fact that it explains what plate tectonics can't (a lot). Since I've got books here, I found a link here with similar information (site's not that great, but works).
-eventhorizon
>Ack. I went to bed, sorry!
;)
>Plate tectonics? Please. It's a well proven fact. Accurate measurements from space have proven the slow movement of the plates. Are you seriously suggesting that Earth's surface, in its current form, has always been in that exact state?
Exact state? haha. I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'll give you a few hints.
In plate tectonics, if plates were subducting into the mantle, mass would be needed first to be added underneath the trenches; in which an excess of gravity should be measured under trenches; but the opposite of that is found with current measurements.
When trenches are formed, material must be removed to form them. Plate tectonics doesn't have any anwer to this; and a subducting plate or anything else pushing into the Earth's mantle would add material under a trench.
How about the fact that plates preferred to subduct in the western Pacific? There's no explanation of this in plate tectonics.
For a plate to begin to subduct under another, it needs to depress at least 30 miles (minimum thickness). Not even close to that has ever been seen.
If subducting plates generate magma that forms volcanoes, then the volcanoes should lie on the side of the trench above the descending plate. The problem is that mnost of them are on the opposite side of the trenches (most of the volcanoes are on the western Pacific, which is the interior to a plate; but according to plate tectonics, they shouldn't be there lol).
If trenches have been here for hundreds of millions of years, many of them should be buried, or lifted above sea level. None of these "fossil" trenches have ever been found. Why?
So do you want me to keep going? lol. Yep. Plate tectonics must be a bulletproof argument
>how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics
>Yes yes. You've already said that onc before. And as before I'm asking for just one credible piece of proof.
Ok, here we go. The first law of thermodymanics states that energy (the total in the universe, or any isolated part) remains constant. It also states that although energy (or mass equivalent) caan change form, it isn't being created or destroyed. With the first law, natural processes can't create energy; but energy must have been somehow created in the past by something independent of the natural universe, or cosmological evolution falls flat on it's face. Also if natural processes can't produce mass and energy, then it's almost impossible that natural processes can explain the more complex organic (or living) portions of the universe.
With the second law, if the universe itself is an isolated system, the energy available for work has been decreasing. But if you went back in time, the available energy would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe (in which the first law says is constant).
>As to all the biological "stuff". I'll just rest it here by saying that bacteria have new generations much much faster than complex organisms, hence they mutate faster.
Well, I guess I'll have to post the answer I made to other people on this:
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) would have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
>since to produce just the enzymes in one orgamism would take 10^40,000 trials
>You're using that tired old statistic from the astronomer Hoyle? Loo
Well I'll quote a post that I made to another guy:
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) would have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
-eventhorizon
>Good luck, nobody has managed it yet... which is a bit odd dontya think, it's almost as if evolution were true or something.
So if macroevolution happened, then bacteria (which produce the most offspring) woudl have had the most variations and mutations. Then natural selection would have "selected" the more favorable changes, then allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. If the organisms evolved, they should have traits that allowed them to progress the furthest, mostly with short reproduction and many offspring. The opposite is seen in science; in more complex organisms (like humans), there are fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. The variations are bounded.
So can natural selection produce new genes, or can it only "select" from preexisting ones? Have you ever seen those new genes develop?
-eventhorizon
Yes; microevolution exists, but truly has nothing to do with "evolution" in general; due to the fact that it follows Mendel's laws, and simply requires simplistic variations among species (which we see every day). Macroevolution on the other hand requires the development of new DNA, progressive mutations, and the general transference from one species to another newer species (which has never been directly observed, and also has most scientific evidence going against it).
-eventhorizon
>Now you claim "evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol" Please provide factual, provable, scientific evidence against evolution. I'll wait here. And I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.
;)
haha. Yep, you thought you'd be waiting a long time, but I'll give you a little teaser, since I'm guessing that you refuse all forms of criticism. Take the widely standardized Plate Tectonic theory for example. This theory is so incredibly flawed that it can't even provide answers to it's own points. And of course nobody is allowed to talk about the large amounts of falsified evidence, how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics, the absence of good explanations for symbiotic relationships, how humans are not hardwired for language, the complete absence of progressive mutations, the total absence of intermediates from macroevolution, the fact that natural selection can only decrease variations (can't produce new genes; it selects), the lack of support for the evolution of DNA, RNA and protein molecules, lack of explanations of internal organs that must be fully developed in order for a species to survive (for example, there are no species with half-developed mouths in existence; and if there were, they would die rapidly), the fact that evolution doesn't work at all with Mendel's laws, the lack of any form of observation of spontaneous generation, no proof for interited characteristics, the problem of altruism versus natural selection, two to five-celled life forms (which microevolution claims that life with 2-20 cells are transitional forms between one-celled and 6-celled parasites, the newer findings on the importance of vestigial organs, no information on the origins and organism reactions of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, no good explanations for complete metamophosis, no supporting evidence for complementary sexual reproduction (where the reproductive systems of both male and female must be completely and independently evolved at the same time and place; and if there's any slight incompleteness, the organisms would become extinct), no good information on the evolution of immune systems, 3,000 consecutive generations of fruit fly experimentations with no proof at all for increasing complexity and viability, no blends of different organisms (such as a natural dog/cat hybrid), the lack of observation of the evolutionary development of natural programs (planned sequences of steps to accomplish goals), no evidence that shows that isolated systems can increase in information (only outside intelligence can increase the information of an isolated system), the enormous amount of chains of fossil gaps that have been concluded that they will never be filled, no good explanations for out-of-place fossils, no information on the evolution of chemical barriers and buffers (which must have had to evolve at the exact time, to prevent any fatal chemical reactions), no traces of evidence at the molecular level (from genetic distances) of the sea life->mammal transition (where each category of organism appears to be completely isolated) so that if evolution happened, for example rattlesnakes would be more closely related to other reptiles (but in reality based on one protein, it was more similar to humans), the probability of mutations and natural selection produced genetic information (which is about the amount of 4,000 books) would be 0 (since to produce just the enzymes in one orgamism would take 10^40,000 trials), the evolutionary position that since bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolved, that they are simple (but fact they have some of the most complicated systems involving flows of protons ever seen), the fact that as science has progressed, "missing links" in the hypothetical "common ancestor" tree have multipled enormously, and thousands upon thousands of more problems (these are just the simplistic surface issues).
So, to prove your point, tell me how a non-living object became "living", and the chemical process that occurred during that time. I'm interested in seeing what "facts" you have
-eventhorizon
>A hallmark of religion is circular logic and circular myths. A good example of evolution in rapid action is the constant changes in influenza viruses.
;)
hahaha - sorry, that's microevolution, not macroevolution (of which is what's commonly called "evolution"). So, have you seen those viruses develop new mutational abilities and physical constructions, and pass those abilities onto offspring? I guess you see half-evolved organisms every day hehe
-eventhorizon
I've got lists of observable data that disproves evolution (I posted small portions of it elsewhere in this discussion), but of course evolutionists will not allow any form of criticism. So, naturalism (which evolutionary theory is a part of) has been gradually turning into more and more of a dogmatic viewpoint, with very weak explanations.
-eventhorizon
>If the subject of how we came to be produces such primitive emotional outbursts in so many of us, then maybe this is less about science and more about instinct and feeling.
You got it - I've tried explaining lots of stuff on that level before, but nobody ever listens. For example, try pointing out one of the thousands of flaws with evolutionary theory. You'll get creamed haha.
-eventhorizon
>Evolution, however, is well over 99% proven.
;)
Ooh! So you mean you've studied have half-evolved species (usually with half-developed organs, etc), and have seen spontaneous generation occur in a lab setting? You mean you have all the information on how immune systems evolved, and that you've witnessed the increase in complexity among consecute generations of organisms? You mean it's been proven that single-celled organisms evolved on their own with 600 protein molecules, something that has a mathematical probability of 1 in 10^450? Wow - I need to see this
-eventhorizon
>And don't tell me about some scientists that are religious, real ones aren't. A scientist uses logic and methods throughout their entire lives.
Yep. It's those wonderful "logic" and "methods" that conflict with scientific laws. How about the Law of Biogenesis? Or the Laws of Thermodynamics? These don't exactly work in any way with evolutionary "logic". As a matter of fact, the evidence goes against evolution in these situations. Well actually, evidence goes against evolution in almost every situation anyway lol.
-eventhorizon
>"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says.
;)
hahaha - so plate tectonics, which have "survived extensive testing", still ended up to be one of the most problematic and pseudo-scientific theories, which is over 90% inaccurate.
Yep, that's modern science for you. If it's 90% inaccurate, it must be true
If you think the plate tectonic theory is bulletproof, then show the scientific evidence for these elements of the origin of trenches (which it completely fails to explain with any accurate evidence):
1. gravity anomalies
2. flood basalts
3. stretched oceanic ridges
4. continental material under the ocean floor
5. fast seismic waves
6. animal fossils in trenches
7. earthquake driving force
8. tension failures
9. wide earthquakes
10. reasonable driving mechanism
11. displaced material
12. frictional resistance
13. arcs and cusps
14. concentrated trenches
15. undistorted layers in trenches
16. initiation
17. scattered volcanoes
18. "fossil" trenches
What I've seen continuously is evolutionists practically reaching a Jihad level when anyone (including scientists) criticise any portion of evolutionary or naturalistic theory.
-eventhorizon
>The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer).
Explain how natural selection can produce new genes, instead of "selecting" from preexisting characteristics. In this method, variations are reduced, not increased. The evolutionary viewpoint shows it's ugly head in the topic of mutations; first, has any modern-day living species with a half-developed organ ever been found? What would happen if an animal had a half-developed mouth (making it impossible to eat)?
Another thing - the platypus issue becomes hilarious in this, because not only does it have organs totally unrelated to it's alleged evolutionary ancestors, but evolutionists don't really have any way to explain how it came about (in light of the "gradual" transitions between variations).
Microevolution exists, not macroevolution.
>From that it moves to its second fallacy, the claim that living systems are too complex to arise from a random process. However, no mathematical evaluation of the level of complexity or the amount of intelligence required is ever made. As a matter of fact, the math was done decades ago, and it turns out that evolution works.
>Intelligent Design does not belong in the classroom except as an example of poor scientific reasoning.
Considering that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, and can't even provide even basic explanations for most of it's theories (such as the Plate Tectonic theory), it's turned into a laughing-stock of scientific "reasoning".
-eventhorizon
One funny thing is how almost every single evolutionist in schools will not allow any form of criticism of any aspect of evolutionary theory. Take the widely standardized Plate Tectonic theory for example. This theory is so incredibly flawed that it can't even provide answers to it's own points. And of course nobody is allowed to talk about the large amounts of falsified evidence, how cosmological theory violates both laws of thermodynamics, the absence of good explanations for symbiotic relationships, how humans are not hardwired for language, the complete absence of progressive mutations, the total absence of intermediates from macroevolution, the fact that natural selection can only decrease variations (can't produce new genes; it selects), the lack of support for the evolution of DNA, RNA and protein molecules, lack of explanations of internal organs that must be fully developed in order for a species to survive (for example, there are no species with half-developed mouths in existence; and if there were, they would die rapidly), the fact that evolution doesn't work at all with Mendel's laws, the lack of any form of observation of spontaneous generation, no proof for interited characteristics, the problem of altruism versus natural selection, two to five-celled life forms (which microevolution claims that life with 2-20 cells are transitional forms between one-celled and 6-celled parasites, the newer findings on the importance of vestigial organs, no information on the origins and organism reactions of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, no good explanations for complete metamophosis, no supporting evidence for complementary sexual reproduction (where the reproductive systems of both male and female must be completely and independently evolved at the same time and place; and if there's any slight incompleteness, the organisms would become extinct), no good information on the evolution of immune systems, and thousands upon thousands of more problems.
I've never seen anything in evolutionary or naturalistic reasoning that has ever been without major flaws. So would it be a crime to question these flaws? If that's a crime, then free speech is doomed; welcome to the brave new world.
-eventhorizon
I guess everybody still thinks that Piltdown Man is still pure 100% proven scientific evidence lol.
"and Linux is declared a "Copyright circumvention device" by His Majesty George W. Bush"
Kinda hard for that to happen, especially if the White House website is hosted on Linux.
-eventhorizon
You also have to keep in mind the massive changes done to the NT kernel over the years, which are usually seen as security hazards. For example, the NT5 kernel (Win2k) had large amounts of the GDI framework placed into the kernel, which was even more than what was moved before in NT4, instead of being entirely in userspace (NT3). For example, if something exploits the GDI or window manager, it'll gain kernel-level access to the system, since the wrongly named NT "microkernel" (ntoskrnl.exe) will treat it as part of the kernel. Thus, it doesn't really matter if the user is running with admin privilages or not; the problems will still occur. Dave Cutler's (of DEC) original design was pretty good (he wrote the majority of the NT kernel core, and modelled it after VMS; other parts were modelled after OS/2), but the current incarnations of NT have possibly the most bloated monolithic kernels ever.
/ reskit/archi.mspx
o ws_2000
To see what was done between NT3 and 4, here's a good description with a chart:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn
Layout of the Windows 2000 kernel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Wind
History of this OS line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
-eventhorizon
Isn't ECS the parent company of PCChips, the company that not only used to sell crap boards with fake cache chips (which even had modified BIOSes that claimed that the cache was real), but even had relabled chipsets and sometimes exploding capacitors? Newer boards by them are also usually flakey, mostly due to the fact that they use the cheapest possible components.
http://www.redhill.net.au/b-bad.html
http://www.rainbow-software.org/hardware.html
One report says that PCChips/ECS is all of these brand names:
PCChips, Amptron, Protac, Aristo, Minstaple, Eurone, Matsonic, ECS, and possibly more.
(I should get a Protac motherboard!!! oh yeah!! lol)
Here's something interesting I just found:
http://www.redhill.net.au/b-02.html
quoted:
------------------
"ECS K7S5A
The SiS 735 chipset is a particularly interesting one. It was first previewed in mid-2001 when the DDR main board market was in the doldrums. The ALI entrant was considered a non-starter, the VIA KT-266 buggy and very late, the well-performed and stable AMD 760 was dear and in short supply, and VIA's SDRAM-only KT-133A was taking all before it. Nvidia's much-touted Nforce was still vapourware. Unless you just didn't care about the cost, a KT-133A was the only rational choice.
Then, from out of nowhere, came the SiS 735: an entrant from a firm that had all but foundered in its sudden rush to build its own fab facilities and cut ties with its former manufacturing partners, a firm that had little left but a reputation, and that a poor one. To everyone's astonishment, the SiS 735 was the clear benchmark leader, and in most respects it still was right up until the transition to 166MHz FSB chipsets began: if we are to disregard the weird all-in-one Nforce, only VIA's second-effort KT266A could beat it. SiS had three hurdles to overcome: the first was demonstrating competitive performance. This they had already done. The second was demonstrating stability and compatibility: this too was within their measure. And the third was getting mainboard makers to adopt it. This was perhaps the hardest task, as mainboard makers are reluctant enough to offend Intel by making VIA and Athlon products, offending both Intel and VIA at the same time requires more than the usual bravery. SiS chose to overcome that reluctance by making the 735 an offer just too good to refuse. It was very cheap. For a high-tech state-of-the-art DDR chipset, it was amazingly cheap.
Elite are surprisingly little-known for a company that is one of the largest mainboard manufacturers of all. They are bigger than ever since their merger with the infamous PC Chips group (the fake cache people) in the late 1990s. They made quite a splash on the overseas markets with this board, one of the very few to use the SiS 735 chipset, and once they overcame a well-publicised BIOS problem, were very successful with it. Here at Red Hill we had been very happy with our KT266A mainboards and had no need to switch, but with the Elite coming in anything up to fifty dollars cheaper than a KT266A, it would be foolish not to try them.
In the flesh, the boards had that familiar PC Chips look about then: they were alarmingly thin and very cheaply made. Our first impression was that there was no way these could be as reliable as our Epox and Soltek KT266As (or our Soltek KT133As, for that matter, for these were a dual mode board that can take SDRAM or DDR), and our past experience with PC Chips associated companies did little to encourage us. Still, we gave a pair of them every chance to show their stuff. We soon found that they were fussy about RAM and incompatible with Athlon Thunderbirds. Not a great start. From there it got a good deal worse: the more we tinkered with them in the workshop the more apparant it became that they were unstable. Quite often they wouldn't even run error-free
That's exactly the same as my viewpoints. I've used XP quite a bit on other machines, but I prefer 2000 over anything else (before 2000 came out I preferred NT4). A while back I installed XP onto my main 2k machine, and ended up spending countless hours trying to get the interface working like 2000 (and XP's "classic" look sucks, mainly because it looks far too toyish). One thing I hated was the crappy colored shell icons (especially in IE), and tried forever to replace the "new" icons with the original ones from shellui.dll. XP's explorer shell overrides the icons from shellui.dll, and that's what I can't stand.
If I ever do "upgrade" to XP, I'll have to use a different shell instead of explorer - otherwise I'll go insane lol (I'm a perfectionist lol).
2000 flys on my main machine (it's an Athlon 2600+ box with a 3-drive 10k SCSI hardware RAID0 array, 512mb ram, etc). It also runs Debian Sarge; but I also use other machines than x86's - mainly an older Mac (OS9), an SGI Indigo2 (IRIX OS, MIPS), a couple Sun SPARC boxes (Solaris), a 433mhz DEC Alpha (OSF Unix), etc.
-eventhorizon
I'm the owner of Tliquest.net, and me and the drunkenblog guy collaborated on this issue for some time now. Most of my research on the tliquest site had to be pulled due to legal threats (I don't have any legal support at this time), but he could handle being sued. About the Java player, there has been lots of speculation on what they have used. I'll post my research log right here, so you can see what still needs to be found (if we need to; unless MXS somehow comes clean):
From primary archive,
http://www.tliquest.net/mxs
There are 20 supposed mirrors of my site, and I'll find out where they are soon.
---------
Listing of projects that VX30 has taken code from:
XviD 0.9.2 (all VX30 versions use this Xvid version)
Media Player Classic (VX30 live also uses MPC's webserver)
LAME (old 2004 version used version 3.93)
Possibly Filezilla (found a whole bunch of error messages from it)
Nero Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder
Liba52
Ogg Vorbis code (it contains libVorbis, but that is under a BSD license; they haven't given credit, so it's a violation)
but - the vorbis streaming code seems to be part of another non-Xiph app
What I still don't know:
-origination of Xvid encoder frontend they used for the original VX30 and later versions
-origination of audio/video streamer server they used
-origination of Java-based decoder client
-which ones of these make up the Live Server app
-which app the threaded Ogg Vorbis code is from
---------
-eventhorizon
"Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe ;)"
;)
Let me add a little info to my post - do you know what they were complaining about? Jpeg images. Of a hex editor viewing strings in their binaries. Wow that's pretty illegal isn't it? lol - I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I got that. Just like MXS's lawyer said, "these links represent illegal activity" and earlier Jim Kartes told me that what I was doing was "extremely illegal". hehe
-eventhorizon
Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe ;)
-eventhorizon