Dawkins Leads Scientists Pushback Against Trans Ideology

 For vrious reasons all three of us are unable to soare any time today.

Here's an interesting story our common sense loving readers migh like to look at.

from The Daily Sceptic.

Richard Dawkins: ‘Trans Women Are Women’ Slogan is Scientifically False 

by Will Jones 

The slogan ‘trans women are women’ is scientifically false and harms the rights of women, Richard Dawkins has said in a new book warning that scientific truth must prevail over “personal feelings”. 

In a new book, the evolutionary biologist warns that scientific truth must prevail over “personal feelings” and argues that academic institutions must defend facts above emotion.

In The War on Science, Dawkins joins several scientists and philosophers contending that academic freedom and truth in universities was being stifled by diversity, equity and inclusion policies that promoted falsehoods under the banner of social justice.

“I draw the line at the belligerent slogan ‘trans women are women’ because it is scientifically false,” he said. “When taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women.

Read the full article >>> 

 

FROM THE ARCHIVE:

[ Transgender Ladies First ] ... [ Health tyranny ] ... [ Transhumanism ] ... [ Humanitas ]

Impartiality? The BBC’s Blind Spot
The year has got off to a poor start for the BBC Identity Hub, led by Jon Buckley. Despite their clear significance, it decided against including several stories in its coverage. This is a specialist team ostensibly covering issues around gender identity, remember. First, there was the Women’s Rights Network report on trans-identified male police officers’ rights to search women’s orifices, which was so solid it led to an apparent shift in policy ...

Heard In A British Court: Miss Trenchard Then Penetrated [the rape victim] With Her Lady Penis
A 19-year-old trans-identified male broke down in tears after a Guernsey Royal Court jury unanimously found him guilty of rape on July 28. Despite the serious crime, Freddie Christian Trenchard, who was born male but identifies as a “trans femme,” was first reported to police in February of last year, though the crime occurred in the summer of 2021.

Just Another Day In Bizarro World: Colonel Forced Out Of TheArmy For Saying 'Men Cannot Be Women'
Dr Kelvin Wright, 54, had been a Reservist commanding officer with 14 years’ unblemished service, including two tours in Afghanistan, before his “honour was attacked” with a transphobia complaint and an investigation he described as “hellish”. In May, he shared a post on his private Facebook account from Fair Play for Women, a group that works to preserve women’s sport for those born female,

I will get hate mail now': Lord Robert Winston backs professor in trans row saying 'you can't change sex'
After making controversial comments on transgender issues during his appearance on BBC television's Question Time last night, biologist and science broadcasdter Lord Robert Winston said today he fears he will be the subject of hate attacks from trans activists and the 'woke' brigade. Winston, not for the first time, publicly backed a fellow academic scientist who triggered the trans - hate mob last wek by saying people "can't change sex".

Doctors Back NHS-Funded ‘Womb Transplants’ for Transgender People

Leading doctors working in the UK’s National Health Service have said they back taxpayer-funded womb transplants for biological males who identify as women and think a bit of surgery and a daily does of hormone tablets can turn them into real, child bearing women. Experts at parting the gullible and emotionally immature from their hard …

Transgenderism and The Left’s Stuggle Against Reality
‘People with penises are men’ – Lit Fic author Ian McEwan takes on The Politically Correct Though Police in the transgender debate. The much acclaimed and highly  respected British author was today facing calls to apologise to those precious little chick-with-dicks like Caitlyn Bruce Jenner after taking a sledgehammer to the politically correct left’s cause … Continue reading   

Equality Institute: Don’t Say ‘Pregnant Women’ as ‘People of All Genders Can Fall Pregnant’

The politics of the left is the politics of insanity, we have been reporting on this for fifteen years (nine as The Daily Stirrer, before that as Little Nicky Machiavelli. And things are getting worse rather than improving. Every day we hear of some new politically correct idiocy from government or from NGOs set up … Continue reading  

Homosexuality: As a liberal society we have a duty to tolderate, not celebrate
Even though the government has accepted a very limited definition of same sex marriage the gay lobby keeps raving on about the greates non issue of all time. But in a free society should we be subjected to bullying if we do not show enough enthusiasm for homosexual and lesbian relationships? When did indifference become a hate crime?

Gay and same sex marriage: The Bigotry And Intolerance Of Those Who Describe Themselves As The Liberal Left
With same sex marriage made legal in Britain we face the same kind of witch hunts against businesses that do not want to deal with beareded queens in bridal gowns as the liberal bigots and gay nazis are launching in the USA. As many of us new media common sense merchants predicted, once the principle was accepted in law, nobody would be allowed to opt out of supporting these bullies.

Scientists create human-sheep chimera with hopes of affordable organ transplants
A team of scientists has grown hybrid embryos in the womb of a sheep that contain human stem cells, moving the sci-fi idea of developing human organs inside animals one step closer to reality, and sparking ethical concerns. The development could potentially save thousands lives among people who are in a need of vital organ transplants.SSS

The Internet Of Things: A Dystopian Nightmare Where Your Entire Life Will Be Monitored On The Internet
We have reported many times on the Internet of Things an idea planned by the big technology companies and bevoled of control freak mainstream politicians and the creepy people who run global corporations. Those who love the idea of technology controlling us are cheering the idea ...

Google’s Eric Schmidt Greases Skids For Internet Brain Chip Google CEO Eric Schmidt greased the skids for an Internet brain chip during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland earlier today when he predicted the end of the world wide web as an external concept. Asked how he saw the Internet developing in future years, Schmidt responded, “There will be so many IP addresses…so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won’t even sense it.”

The Robotification Of Human Society Is being Implemented

Are you ready to surrender your humanity to science, accept having computer chips implanted in your skull that will link your brain to the internet (via a Google server) and let your life be controlled by machines? That's what The Controllers are planning for you ... Transhumanism: The Elite's Agenda For Total Control
Robot lovers, indestrictible soldiers with no mercy or compassion, everlasting life for beings that are part human, part machine, genetically modified humans with supernatural strength and endurance competing in future 'hungrer Games' style Olympic tournaments: the plot of some dystopian novel? No, actual items in the elite's agenda for total control.
Transhumanism and Eugenics
We have said many times that the science community is at war with humanity. Scientists are out of control, evry day we hear of some new scheme to try to control nature, be it human nature or the climate. Given what we ought to have learned from all previous attempts to control nature we can only conclude that scientists are insane psychos willing to risk destroying life to show off how clever they are.
Transhumanism: Join The Resistance
Transhumanism, the creation of - or turning us into - part human, part machine cyborgs is generating a lot of discussion and a lot of spontaneous ejaculations in the scientific community as they contemplate having their brains replaced by a computer. There are no limits on the ambitions of scientists fantasies, they even envisage creating robots that can interbreed with us, but how much is realistic?
Transhumanism: They will get under your skin
We seem to be talking a lot about transhumanism, the process of turing us into human - animal or human -machine hybrids recently. The Daily Stirer thinks such technological visions are nothing more than the fantasies of sick minds, but politicians and corporate leaders, ever eager for more power and control, seem willing to stump up infintie funding. Technology and Transhumanism
Prof Mark Post, a researcher at the University of Maastricht, has spent several years developing a technique for growing meat in the lab. Yesterday, he unveiled the product of his work: a petri-dish beefburger, grown from stem cells. Genetically, it is beef, but it has never seen a cow. The eye-watering price tag represents the cost of the whole project (Google’s Sergey Brin was picking up the bill). The shamburger was cooked via a live video stream on the internet, and was pronounced as basically meat-like (if lacking salt and fat) by a panel of chefs, who for some reason ate it without ketchup.

Artificial Intelligence: Will It Kill Human Society?
The media, the so called 'experts' and politicians hail every technological advance as if it will btransport us from reality to a utopian paradise. but does Artificial Intelligence and related internet and computer technology pose theats to human society that far outweigh any possible advantages? Whateve, Google plan to put machines in our place on top of the food chain.

When Algorithms Rule The World
It must seem to many people that technology is taking over the world and our lives. The internet is everywhere and algorithms filter information to control the news and influence behaviour. But is the technology takeover as solid as it seems or are the hyperbolic claims based on some very dodgy logic?

Is Technology Creating Physical and Psychological Hazards In The Digital Age?
Scientific research used to be the area of work that trailblazers, those with an unquenchable desire for new experience and a hyperactive sense of adventure wanted to be involved in. Now those who label themselves 'scientists' seem to have become the high priests of an ultra - conservative religion, determined at all costs to block progess that may lead to understanding that the dogmas of the past are just wrong

The Mummers: The Controlling system And The Illusion Of Freedom
We live in a world of deception, where truth is an ephemeral thing, slippery as an eel and shadowy as a spectre. What we are expercted to perceive as reality is just spin and misinformation designed to ensure the elite maintain their control. There's eff all you can do just get on with your life, say the shills for big government and authoritarianism. But are we really nothing more than slaves of the system?

Transhumanism Beautiful Children With No Love In The Eyes
Alien In My Bed

Boris’ Government Trying To Bypass Parliament, Introduce Vaccine Passports By Back Door
We warned you this authoritarian government would not let the idea of vaccine passports go and here they are, reported by Summit News (well you didn't expect to see it in mainstream media did you?} tyring to bring in their wretched "Papers Please" legislation by the back door.

UK School staff receive threats of violence amid anti-vaccination campaign

Government plans to push their dodgy vaccines onto schoolchildren are meeting opposition. On the back of scientific studies showing children are at zero risk from cOVID and do not spread the virus parents, and citizens concerned at this fascistic coercion of citizens to accept an experimental medication are reacting in the only way they can.

"F**K The Jab, Long Live Australia" - 20,000 Shut Down Melbourne Highway In Massive Lockdown Protest
Anti-lockdown protests have become commonplace in Australia since the latest round of "snap" lockdowns began two months ago although you wouldn't think so if you rely on mainstream media for information about what's going on in this increasingly insane world. Newspapers and broadcast news channels have almost totally blanked stories reporting the pushback against the Australian government's increasingly authoritarian measures

France: Thousands of Health Workers Who Refused Covid Vaccine Mandate Suspended
The French government have today suspended 3,000 health workers who have defied a manadte requiring all medical personnel to be vaccinated against COVID,The Guardian reports. Announcing the move France’s health minister said that many have since agreed to be inoculated now that they had seen “the mandate was a reality”.

Major Study Links Covid Vaccines To Disruption Of Womens Reproductive Cycle
More evidence that COVID vaccine program is a scam emerged today as a study carried out by Imperial College, London suggests a link between Pfizer, Moderna, AZ and J&J vaccines and the menstrual cycle. Some of us have been reporting since early this year on the problems people have experienced after COVID vaccination. Among the problems reported was disruption of women's menstrual cycle ... Continue reading >>>

The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda Relies On The Lie Of The "Social Contract"
There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked when examining the vaccine passport issue, and what I find is that almost no one in the mainstream is tackling it directly. The question is this: "Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”, or any other medical procedure for that matter?"

Evil Labour Government Helped Private Companies Profit From NHS
If you live in Heywood and Middleton and were thinking of voting for the greedy, paedophile loving, elitists' party, Labour because you have been taken in by the lies peddled at the Labour conference that the wicked Tories plan to privatize the NHS, think again.

The science of saturated fat: A big fat surprise about nutrition?
After years of being told saturated fat is a killer and we should avoid it in favour of Big Food products that are the nearest modern chemistry can get to packaging arterial plaque, yet another scientific meta analysis shows the sat fat scare was based of fraudulent science and there is no evidence your steak is harming you.

CDC Admits as Many as 30 Million Americans Could be at Risk for Cancer Due to Polio Vaccine
Vaccine, that great profit driver for the pharmaceutical corporations, are under the spotlight again. This time it is a link between polio vaccine and cancer which makers and medical science has denied for fifty years that has finally been admitted by the US Centre for Disease control. How ironic they have owned up just weelks after the Obama administration granted Pharma corporations immunity from legal actions.

Statins? Our Welfare Or Corporate Profits, Which Side Is Medical Science On?
The propaganda aimed at convincing us that if we throw enough money at medical science the boffins can provide drugs to prevent death is not about the greatest good of the greatest number, it is about corporate profit and political power. The latest scam is to swing public opinion into accepting mass medication with drugs most do not need. It is just a scam to sell a drug the scientists and manufacturers know is no good.

EXPLORE:
[Daily Stirrer] ... [ Our Page on on Substack ]... [Boggart Aboad] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Quora ] ... [ Greenteeth Home ] ... [ Greenteeth on Minds.com ] ... [ Here Come The Russians ] ... [ Latest Posts ] ... [ Blog Bulletin ]

EXPLORE:
[Daily Stirrer] ... [ Our Page on on Substack ]... [Boggart Aboad] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Quora ] ... [ Greenteeth Home ] ... [ Greenteeth on Minds.com ] ... [ Here Come The Russians ] ... [ Latest Posts ] ... [ Blog Bulletin ]  ... [ Linehan ]

 

 

Zuckerberg's Plan For World Domination

Our readers will know that we are not great fans of the moonfaced, Islamic extremism loving Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In the past we have exposed how Facebook was started by CIA seed money because it offered a chance to collect vast amounts of private data on individuals, how Zuckerberg (and other tech corporation's bosses have collaborated with government to work against the interests of freedom and civilised values, and how, mysteriously, Facebook's annual profits are closely linked to the handouts of taxpayers' money the social media site gets from US Government.

Control Freak, Fantasist and nerd, Zuckerberg was always certifiably insane, but now he seems to have gone right over that edge, and decided Facebook is essential to the next stage of human evolution.:

Mark Zuckerberg’s theory of human history

Can Facebook help humanity take its “next step”?

Updated by Ezra Klein

Mark Zuckerberg’s 6,000-word manifesto on the future of Facebook begins with a capsule narration of human achievement. “History is the story of how we've learned to come together in ever greater numbers,” Zuckerberg writes, “from tribes to cities to nations. At each step, we built social infrastructure like communities, media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn't on our own.”

The Facebook CEO does not explicitly add his social network to that list of social infrastructure, but the rest of the letter makes clear that he wants to see it on there, and soon. “Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community,” he argues, and “Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community.”

There has, in recent months, been growing speculation about the role Zuckerberg wants to play in the world. Quartz, for instance, has published a 4,000-word story imagining Zuckerberg’s successful campaign for the presidency, as well as a checklist of things Zuckerberg would need to do to run for president in 2020. The Atlantic has suggested that the groundwork is already being laid.

But with this manifesto, Zuckerberg is articulating an ambition that is in some ways grander than the US presidency: he wants to use Facebook as the platform on which to build a global civil society, creating a service that encourages communities and cooperation and political participation on a transnational scale. He frames national governments as merely one piece of “social infrastructure,” and suggests that the world might need something to push beyond their limits. He wants Facebook to help humanity take its “next step.”

But to do that, he’ll need to make some changes to Facebook.

Crazy stuff indeed, read the full article at Vox

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

Evolution: Theory, Fact or Fiasco?

Another slow news day and a milestone to reach before the end of the year. Ho hum, better throw in one of my more philosophical posts I guess.

Much as I have faith in Charles Darwin's Theory Of Evolution as a feasible explanation of how diverse species originate (The Origin Of The Species) it annoys me when science fans insist "Evolution is not a theory, its a fact." Especially annoying of course is when they cite evolution to explain the origin of life on earth or the development of human intelligence. Even more annoying is their assumption that anyone questioning them is a young Earth creationist. Here are a few thoughts on some of evolution theory's inconsistencies.

Read all: Evolution: Theory, Fact or Fiasco?

We Must Let Darwinism Do Its Work

Most of us in the UK believe in Darwin's evolution principle, survival of the fittest or best adapted. It is a wonderful system that created all the wonders of the animal and plant world. Left to itself evolution will ensure the survival of life long into the future. So why do we keep trying to screw it up by preserving the lives of those who because of stupidity or incompetence do not deserve to live and should be stopped from breeding.

Nature's system has worked well for millions of years, why do scientists want to interfere with it?

Read all: We Must Let Darwinism Do Its Work

Has Human Evolution Stopped - Are We Now Masters Of Our Own Destiny

The usual arguments around the topic of evolution revolve on the science versus religion war, did we evolve or were we created? That is really an unsatisfactory debate because unless the ancient texts of many religions are interpreted literally then the Big Bang could have been the result of an act of creation while evolution addresses the diversity of life, not its origin.  When we consider the question of whether modern biology has made evolution obsolete however, that is fertile ground for those who like to speculate.

Read a considered article on the question of evolution: are the current generation of humans the end of evolution, will science now determine what we become in the future, or have the scientists got it horribly wrong in trying to control nature and will future generations pay an enormous price for their hubris.

Has Human Evolution Stopped

Religion, Science? Will Nothing Shut The Fundamentalists Up?

Evolution - the next stage (Image source)

The religious fundamentalists have surely realised that they cause is lost, the world wasn't created in seven days, periods are not a curse put on women by God for Eve's disobedience and we are not all going to suddenly decide we have to believe their idiotic rantings.

All of which my explain why they are getting loonier and more hysterical in their attempts to scare the gullible.

Two old posts at Pandangon on the fundie related topics are well worth reading to remind ourselves how obnoxious the right were when they had the upper hand (It is therefore understandble that the left have become obnoxious bullies during the Obama era - understandable but not acceptable:

Creationism Is One Long Temper Tantrum

The Voice of God

On the other hand, the sciencologists can be just as bad. Take a look at this exchange between two of our contributors (who both accept Darwinian evolution as the Origin Of The Species presents it, but reject Dawkinsian evolution which requires us to indulge in magical thinking to accept that matter can evolve out of nohing and life can evolve out of non life)

Richard Dawkins: ‘Terrible Indictment’ of Ben Carson That He’s ‘Ignorant’ on Evolution (Breitbart London)

Sunday ( November 1, 2015) on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,”

British evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins said Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson not believing in evolution is a “disgrace for a distinguished doctor” and a “terrible indictment.”

On the Republican candidates not believing in evolution, Dawkins said, “This is not something you believe in or not. This is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much as fact as that the earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant. I don’t believe those presidential candidates are ignorant. I believe what they are doing is they think they have got to say that in order to appeal to their constituency. If that’s true, it’s deeply depressing.”

On Dr. Ben Carson specifically Richard Dawkins said, “You just told me all the Republican candidates except one doesn’t believe in evolution, I mean that’s a disgrace. For a senor a very eminent, distinguished doctor, as he is, to say that is even worse. Because of course evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine. For a distinguished doctor to not understand, I have to use the word understand, he clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theory of his own subject, that’s a terrible indictment.”

At Boggart Blog (with Greenteeth and The Daily Stirrer) we love to wind up Dawkin's followers for the wy they have turned science into a relion and try to force acceptance of their dogma. The problem I have with Dawkinsian evolution (I'm fine with Darwin)is it proffers 'evolution as the driving force behind the origin of life on earth. One of our contributors decided to stir things up a bit by replying. First thing to note though, Dawkins is not an evolutionary biologist, he's a geneticist and as such tends to overstate the importance of genes.

Arthur Foxake • 2 days ago

If only Dawkins understood evolution himself I might be willing to listen to he opinion. To Dawkins, his followers and other militant atheist sects in the Church Of Scienceology, Evolution is just an atheist creation myth.
A biologist of my intimate acquaintance once told me that abiogenisis (the theory that life emerged spontaneously when a cocktail of chemical compounds came together in warm water surrounding volcanic vents on the seabed) cannot be correct because for a cell to form certain enzymes must be present and these enzymes can only be developed within a living cell. Being a proper scientist she also said that is not certain, but no other explanation stands up to questioning and attempts by bio - chemists to persuade life to emerge spontaneously have failed to produce positive results.
So perhaps Prof Dawkins and his followers can explain for us doubters which came first, the enzymes or the cell?
Abiogenisis is no more credible than The Book Of Genesis and Darwin's 'Origin Of The Species By Natural Selection' etc. only deals with how species, by adapting to environmental changes eventually become new species.

rationalobservations @ Arthur Foxake • 2 days ago

"First it’s important to note that accepting the reality of evolution is not a devotion to atheism.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recognizes that humans evolved from other animals.
Pope John Paul II openly recognized the realities of evolution in 1996.
President John F. Kennedy had no problem with evolution. In fact, one of his speeches discussing our origin from the sea was played during a Super Bowl XLIX commercial for Carnival Cruise Lines.

There are those who keep a liberal interpretation of their religion that allows compatibility with modern science. This has allowed millions of Christians and people of other faiths to contribute to advancements in medicine, sanitation, food supply, transportation, and other fields that have greatly increased the standard of living for mankind.

And then there are those who keep a dogmatic interpretation of their religion that only leaves room for an 18th century understanding of the universe. Ironically these same people use computers and iPhones. They have no problem using technology that was made available by modern science while keeping their antiquated views of reality.

Someone who dogmatically believes that disease can only be cured by god and prayer will never create a vaccine that will ultimately be responsible for saving millions of lives.

Imagine a child arguing that the earth is not spinning because we don’t feel it or crash into things when we jump straight up. The best thing to do would be to explain the supporting scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates that the earth is spinning and relativity to understand why it doesn’t seem to be from our perspective.

But what if the child refused to listen and simply kept repeating that the earth doesn’t rotate. That is one obnoxious child that refuses to listen or learn. Now let’s suppose the child is 40 years old. We would need to conclude that the adult was mentally challenged, delusional, or extremely gullible and being persuaded by ignorant people.

When creationists argue that we never see a cat turning into a dog, the ignorance is staggering. What makes it worst is they often say things like that with a smug grin. Not only do they have no idea of how a species is classified or how evolution works, they are proudly and shamelessly ignorant. They have no desire at all to read a book and actually learn the subject matter.

A species should never be understood as some giant sudden leap from elephant to tiger. There is no magical point in time where a biological divide causes separate species classifications between animals. This understanding is critical to understanding evolution. The evolution of species isn’t about a sudden giant horn, long neck, or trunk. The most basic species classifications are about the ability to mate.

When the separation of animals occur such as when one group of animals is gradually divided into separate land masses by water through continental separation and drift, and that separation continues to the point where if rejoined the two groups would no longer be able to biologically mate, or when that possibility is extremely low, they would then be classified as different species.

But once again, there is no magical point in time and the definition isn’t perfect. We classify Neanderthals as a different species from our own, but we now know that there was interbreeding between them and our ancient ancestors. Once again, the species classification isn’t based on a magical point in time.

The split between a singular group of animals into different groups in different physical locations which cause them to follow different evolutionary paths is critical to understand. Often a creationist will say if humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys. That’s like saying if British people colonized North America, why do we still have British people. And we didn’t evolve from modern monkeys which makes the creationist cliché even more painfully ignorant.

Even the most dogmatic creationists have to admit that the attributes of an animal can be dramatically modified and guided through breeding. Humans have accelerated the process through artificial selection where we modify the traits of plants and animals through selective breeding and cause change to happen far more rapidly than natural selection. And now we have the technology to genetically modify plants and animals.

Creationists in admission to small gradual changes try to separate what they call micro-evolution and what they call macro-evolution. They claim to believe that adaptation and breeding can cause small changes, but not big changes. But if you believe in small changes, a big change is simply a cumulating of small changes. If you believe in small changes, you believe in big changes.

But these changes take a tremendously long time to happen. Creationists often demand that millions of years of evolution be demonstrated in their lifetime. It doesn’t work that way. The fossil evidence clearly shows evolution over a long period of time is what occurred on earth. Simple life forms evolving into complex life forms. In terms of time, even the so called “Cambrian Explosion” of rapid evolution was a time frame of tens of millions of years.

We now have DNA evidence which corresponds to geological evidence and fossil evidence. Some creationists are trying to classify what happened before our lifetimes as “historical science” which they say requires faith to believe in. This is absurd. If you dig into the ground and find a riverbed of lava, you can conclude an active volcano created it even though you were not there when it happened. That’s not faith, it’s evidence, common sense, and logic.

And how hypocritical for creationists to argue against knowledge of what happened before our lifetimes based on science and then claim truth in absurd myths said to have taken place before our lifetimes.
Their argument is akin to:
You can’t claim that lightning had the same causes it does now 2,500 years ago. You weren’t there.
Zeus caused lightning 2,500 years ago. We know this to be true because someone wrote it in a book.
Any modern scientific explanation for lightning requires the same amount of faith as “Zeus did it.”

But what about changes in higher classifications of species? It all comes down to small changes leading to bigger changes.

A lemur is classified as a Strepsirrhini. An African monkey is classified as a Catarrhini. Both of these sub classifications roll up to Primate. Dogs and cats belong to different sub classifications that roll up to Carnivora. When a separation of species continues to the point where significant changes in classification attributes occur, a different classification is created. Once again, small changes accumulate and eventually lead to big changes.

What is the difference between a cat and a dog which leads to different classifications or what creationists often refer to as different “kinds?” A cat has retractable claws. Dogs are pack animals. Cats are carnivores while dogs are omnivores. Cats can climb trees while dogs cannot. Dogs run down their pray, cats stalk. There are physical, dietary and behavioral differences between the two. They both have attributes that are common to a specific classification.

If a group of cats or dogs was to become isolated and over a large amount of time evolved to lose certain attributes related to its’ specific classification or gain certain attributes that were outside of its’ specific classification, a new classification would be created. A dog would not evolve into a cat nor would a cat evolve into a dog. They would eventually evolve into a new subcategory of Carnivora. And enough changes to a subcategory would lead to changes of higher categories.

So what’s the big deal? Why not allow creationists to poison science education and molest the knowledge that was won with great sacrifice by our ancestors? The issue is human problems require human solutions. The wellbeing of future generations rely on our scientific competency today. Creationists want to hold us back in scientific understanding and education at a critical time for our species to move forward."

- James Kirk Wall

arthurfoxake @ rational observations - 2 days ago

... and your point is?

rationalobservations @ Arthur Foxake • 2 days ago

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."

Arthur remarked to me that rational observations, in spite of using a lot of words had not attempted to answer the question. One of our foreign affairs contributors, Ed Butt took up the case, wade through irrational's long winded replies and Ed reveals why Dawkins should not consude his beliefs with facts and why pompous old irrational observations is ridiculously wrong:

Ed Butt @ rationalobservations? - 2 days ago

Wow, what a long and thorough reply, must have taken you ages to cut and paste it. But you still have not answered Arthur's question, "Which came first, the enzyme or the cell?"

In my experience the awkward ones like that will stump the science worshippers every time.

rationalobservations? Ed Butt • a day ago

Ribozymes: scissors from an old world

Sophie Petit-Zeman

According to the biologist Jerome Lettvin, "Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking." Protein catalysts that make reactions happen much faster than they otherwise would, enzymes are certainly a neat part of the biological picture, accelerating traffic on the highway along which DNA makes RNA, and RNA makes protein.

But this picture does indeed beg a bit of harder thinking. Given that enzymes are proteins, how did travels on the genetic road first get rolling? How did DNA make proteins, and indeed replicate itself, before it had made some enzymes, for which it needed, well, some enzymes?

Bit of a conundrum, that. And one that persisted until the revolutionary work of Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman in the 1980s overturned the notion of RNA as merely an intermediate in the synthesis of proteins from DNA, and unmasked RNA's own intrinsic catalytic activity.

The first breakthrough came in 1982 when Cech's University of Colorado team found an RNA in the ciliated protozoan Tetrahymena thermophila that could cleave and splice itself without any external protein or energy source. Shortly afterwards, Altman's group at Yale University found a similarly independent RNA in an enzyme called ribonuclease P in the bacteria Escherichia coli. The concept of enzymes made of RNA — called ribozymes — gained credence, and Cech and Altman shared the 1989 Nobel prize for chemistry for their work.

Not only did Cech's work severely upset received wisdom about the nature of enzymes and RNA, it also showed that introns — classically regarded as sequences of 'non-coding' genetic material that lie between coding exons in DNA and RNA — were far from junk. The Tetrahymena ribozyme is itself an intron, and it has since been shown that as well as possessing intrinsic catalytic activity, some intron sequences encode proteins that are required for the processing of DNA and RNA.

So, the present status of RNA as DNA's self-effacing servant may once have been very different. RNA appears to be a multitalented molecule; both a repository of information (genetic code) and a catalyst for protein synthesis and replication. The recognition that RNA had properties that are so central to the creation of life gave rise to the 'RNA world' hypothesis, that RNA had once been both scriptwriter and director (Fig. 1). While this idea is not without its critics, scientists, excited by this hypothesis, began to scour many organisms to look for more of these ribozyme 'relics'.

Ed Butt rationalobservations? • a day ago

"May once have been, and "appears to be"? Another nice cut and paste job demonstrating the usual scientific vagueness and hedging of bets. Have you anything definite to offer. Or better still any thoughts of your own to bring to this public discussion forum?

rationalobservations? Ed Butt • a day ago

That's science for you! It takes the evidence and provides a rational explanation for that evidence.

Unlike religion that takes confused and contradictory mythology and demands that no evidence is required in support of that mythology and all evidence that contradicts that mythology must be somehow "wrong".

How about some original 1st century originated evidence of the existence, life and times of a god-man/messiah that features in fables and legends that originate in first and oldest form in a bibles from 4th century Rome?

How about some rational evidence that supports the two different creation myths from genesis 1 and genesis 2?

1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named "Jesus"?

2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

3) Are you aware of - and can you explain - the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man "Jesus" is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

6) Can you explain why "Jesus" (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within Jewish literature and tradition?

Get back to me if you think you have evidence based answers to these evidence based questions.

(Don't bother with more debunked bunkum from your confused and internally contradictory book of nonsense and mythology.)

Ed Butt @ rationalobservations? • 21 hours ago

Why do you keep talking about religion? I'm not obsessed with religion like Dawkins is, I'm not even Christian. As for the Bible, it is, in my not so humble opinion, as big a load of drivel all all that vague, inconclusive stuff you keep cutting and pasting. And you are being irrational when you refer to it as MY book of nonsense. I have not referred to the Bible once until now so why do you suggest I have. Are you commenting on what you wanted me to reply rather than what I actually replied.

I get the impression that I am not reading rational observations but ravings of the deranged.

I will take questions on Zoroastrian Avestas, Hindu Vedas and European paganism but don't assume I'm a believer, my interest in them stems from other sources.

You know you should try to deal with that binary mindset problem to increase your credibility. Do you not have a clue how irrational it is to assume your critics are religious fanatics and creationists just because they don't defer to Dawkins as the Pontifex Maximus of the Church Of Scienceology and prophet of athesm.

And you still haven't answered the original question. Which came first, the enzyme or the cell? Unless you can give us facts rather than might and possibly I suggest you cling to your belief and respect the right of the God Squad to hold theirs.

Me? I'll just carry on being a wind up merchant, I enjoy it.

Rational Observations @ Ed Butt

Carry on trolling and asking meaningless questions if that makes you happy.

Ed Butt

Carry on being an irrational bigot if that's what makes you happy.

But here's something that might help you understand why evolution does not explain the origins of life. Read it, don't comment on what you think it ought to say.
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=5628
http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
You will learn, if you have the humility to do so, that there is in fact NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that true living organisms can come into being without the presence of enzymes.

So which came first, the enzyme or the cell?

That is of course a meaningless question only in the sense that you cannot understand its meaning. Now you troll off and stop disrupting the discussions of intelligent and open minded people.

Then Arthur plunges back into the fray:

Arthur @ Foxake rationalobservations? 3 hours ago

That's not an intelligent response. Creationism and evolution are not opposites. Evolution deals with the development of species from earlier, usually less advanced species. Creationism is a belief system dealing with origins of the universe, origins of life etc.
The universe did not evolve, it happened. According to one rather tongue in cheek theory from physicist John Gribben, the creators might have been a bunch of extra terrestrial engineers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html
I don't agree or disagree with him, unlike you my mind is not closed to ideas so I find his theory interesting and entertaining, and actually not capable of being falsified. Therefore I accept Gribben's designer universe as possible but improbable.
You on the other hand (I've read you other comments in this thread) seem to think there is only one possible kind of creation act, the one where The God Of Abraham snaps his fingers and says, "Let there be stuff." And suddenly where there was nothing, there is stuff. Absolute rubbish of course, but Big Bang theory asks us to believe a similar thing.

RELATED POSTS:
MAIN TAGS: Biology >> Evolution >> Religion >> Science
Back to Contents table


Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [ Ian at Minds ] ... [ The Origninal Boggart Blog] ... [ TSU ]