Bounded Variations

While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations
are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For
example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that
quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and
mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable
changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce,
and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have
allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and
many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex
organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer
reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms
appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest
numbers for the longest times should also, according to
macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features
and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers
per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout
practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of
microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t
evolve.

a.	“... the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the
more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace
had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively
pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain
the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s
Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b.	“The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as
vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act
therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the
geological time scales available ...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity
Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c.	Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial
Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes5.html#wp1058654

On May 28, 8:24 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote: his daily spurt of crap

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Bounded Variations
> 

Rather than bother with the link given, you can learn what "Creation 
Science" really is in this excellent piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

 From which I quote: 'The United States National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) has noted, "Religious opposition to evolution propels 
antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to 
supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to 
battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of 
evolution for religion."'

Basically, evolution from a common simple life form (which we now 
know to be a fact) undermines the various creation myths, and 
without a "creation" and a "creator" to fall back on, the whole of 
god mythology starts to fall like a pack of cards - which is, of 
course, what we are seeing now all around us.

The whole of the fundamentalist evangelical movement is polarisation 
caused by the withering of moderate religion - effectively the death 
throes and spasms of religious belief.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes


"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:KuydnS6ek6Du4qPVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:


> Rather than bother with the link given, you can learn what "Creation 
> Science" really is in this excellent piece:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

***trimmed****

> The whole of the fundamentalist evangelical movement is polarisation 
> caused by the withering of moderate religion - effectively the death 
> throes and spasms of religious belief.



.....except, sadly it appears, not those of islamic dispersion.
I think there is more to come from islam just yet.



Mark

mark wrote:

> ... snip ...
>> The whole of the fundamentalist evangelical movement is polarisation 
>> caused by the withering of moderate religion - effectively the death 
>> throes and spasms of religious belief.
> 
> ......except, sadly it appears, not those of islamic dispersion.

Oh, I don't know. The dominating, moderate influence is still very 
evident in the UK, with many kids now brought up here by immigrant 
parents who's beliefs will never change. I suspect that the radical 
islam is just more of the death throes in a small minority, but very 
many more kids will be silently questioning their religion as they 
get some scientific eduction. I think that this will be more 
apparent, in terms of religious belief dwindling, in their own 
children - brought up by parents with no real religious zeal.

> I think there is more to come from islam just yet.

Sadly, you're probably right!

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:u8qdnV6Cb_u6C6PVnZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> mark wrote:
>
>> ... snip ...
>>> The whole of the fundamentalist evangelical movement is polarisation 
>>> caused by the withering of moderate religion - effectively the death 
>>> throes and spasms of religious belief.
>>
>> ......except, sadly it appears, not those of islamic dispersion.


> Oh, I don't know. The dominating, moderate influence is still very evident 
> in the UK, with many kids now brought up here by immigrant parents who's 
> beliefs will never change. I suspect that the radical islam is just more 
> of the death throes in a small minority, but very many more kids will be 
> silently questioning their religion as they get some scientific eduction. 
> I think that this will be more apparent, in terms of religious belief 
> dwindling, in their own children - brought up by parents with no real 
> religious zeal.


Well, islam isn't confined to the UK, let alone Europe but the problem is 
more to do with the core religion itself.  It is an all encompassing life 
absorbing religion that takes it's children and educates them dogmatically 
into a belief in god.  (I think we have to understand that ALL religions 
have their radical elements and they will always remain on the periphery of 
their chosen belief system whatever...)
The religion itself is 'dinosaurish'  (on second thoughts, aren't they 
all...!)  and the predisposition to male dominance over female is 
distasteful and outmoded.
I don't share your view that the upcoming generations are going to break 
this down so easily,  even on the basis that 'some' europeanised  younger 
muslims might be able to break free from its dogma.
The evidence, thus far, is that it is growing as a religion and seems headed 
to outstrip christianity by around 2050.
However, I see no difference between *confronting* christianity  as a 
religious idealogy  and confronting Islam.   The problem here of course, as 
witnessed with plays, cartoon images, books and more is that we have to 
change the notion that with this Islamic religion,  everything is out of 
bounds when confronting it.
This, in europe at least, is a major step not yet taken... but one we have 
succesfully addressed and challenged with christianity - right down to 
ridiculous blasphemy laws...
Indeed, there is something to glean from the fervour of muslims when 'their' 
religious belief system is challenged that demonstrates the enormity of the 
task ahead.  I'm not for a diminishing christian influence only to be 
replaced by an ascending islamic influence, such as we see in some areas of 
the country at this very moment.  For example, islamic only schools in 
Bradford and the suggestion that sharia law might be imported here for 
muslims....
As we probably both know, the problem is not so much christianity, islam or 
judaism...............  it's religion fullstop.





Mark

mark wrote:

> The evidence, thus far, is that it is growing as a religion and seems headed 
> to outstrip christianity by around 2050.

With the decline is christianity, that's not going to be difficult. 
You could argue that it has already happened. I saw one estimate 
last year that islam now has a higher number of regular worshippers 
in the UK than the CofE.

> This, in europe at least, is a major step not yet taken... but one we have 
> succesfully addressed and challenged with christianity - right down to 
> ridiculous blasphemy laws...

This is the worrying part. Organisations like the EC and the UN are 
being systematically targeted and undermined by the religious:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/universalhumanrightsterminallyda.html

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:ZeqdnUV7raAqN6PVnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> mark wrote:
>
>> The evidence, thus far, is that it is growing as a religion and seems 
>> headed to outstrip christianity by around 2050.
>
> With the decline is christianity, that's not going to be difficult. You 
> could argue that it has already happened. I saw one estimate last year 
> that islam now has a higher number of regular worshippers in the UK than 
> the CofE.
>
>> This, in europe at least, is a major step not yet taken... but one we 
>> have succesfully addressed and challenged with christianity - right down 
>> to ridiculous blasphemy laws...
>
> This is the worrying part. Organisations like the EC and the UN are being 
> systematically targeted and undermined by the religious:
>
> http://www.secularism.org.uk/universalhumanrightsterminallyda.html


Phwewh....  I missed that,  thanks.
Arguably, it doesn't get much 'higher'  than this, does it..?
It's shameful discredit to the UNDHR..... but one sees,  in this, the 
absolute corruption that organised religion can, and does,  bring about...
Protect your religion by constraints within and protect your religion from 
attack without........the best of all worlds then..


Mark

mark wrote:

>>> This, in europe at least, is a major step not yet taken... but one we 
>>> have succesfully addressed and challenged with christianity - right down 
>>> to ridiculous blasphemy laws...
>> This is the worrying part. Organisations like the EC and the UN are being 
>> systematically targeted and undermined by the religious:
>>
>> http://www.secularism.org.uk/universalhumanrightsterminallyda.html
> 
> 
> Phwewh....  I missed that,  thanks.
> Arguably, it doesn't get much 'higher'  than this, does it..?
> It's shameful discredit to the UNDHR..... but one sees,  in this, the 
> absolute corruption that organised religion can, and does,  bring about...
> Protect your religion by constraints within and protect your religion from 
> attack without........the best of all worlds then..

It is to be hoped that everyone contributing to this newsgroup is 
doing something about it by joining and subscribing to the National 
Secular Society, who are campaigning against this sort of thing:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/join.html

It could just be the best 30 quid you ever spend.

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:1_udnbfdE_u5YaPVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> mark wrote:
>
>>>> This, in europe at least, is a major step not yet taken... but one we 
>>>> have succesfully addressed and challenged with christianity - right 
>>>> down to ridiculous blasphemy laws...
>>> This is the worrying part. Organisations like the EC and the UN are 
>>> being systematically targeted and undermined by the religious:
>>>
>>> http://www.secularism.org.uk/universalhumanrightsterminallyda.html
>>
>>
>> Phwewh....  I missed that,  thanks.
>> Arguably, it doesn't get much 'higher'  than this, does it..?
>> It's shameful discredit to the UNDHR..... but one sees,  in this, the 
>> absolute corruption that organised religion can, and does,  bring 
>> about...
>> Protect your religion by constraints within and protect your religion 
>> from attack without........the best of all worlds then..


> It is to be hoped that everyone contributing to this newsgroup is doing 
> something about it by joining and subscribing to the National Secular 
> Society, who are campaigning against this sort of thing:
>
> http://www.secularism.org.uk/join.html
>
> It could just be the best 30 quid you ever spend.


yes.........I'm in


Mark