jeudi 27 septembre 2012

Debate with an Alternative Evolutionist (real shorty)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What is your main argument against classic creationist fixism, especially when it comes to mammals (for plants there are obvious things to be said for evolution of for instance all lemon / orange like or all raspberry / blackberry like plants from common origin)?
Eugene McCarthy of Macroevolution dot net
I merely offer an alternative evolutionary theory. Nowhere do I argue against creationism. In fact, I don't see how creationism can be argued against since it's not an evidence-based outlook. It's based on a simple belief in miracles. You either believe in miracles or you don't. How could any sort of evidence or argument persuade someone who believes in miracles not to believe in miracles?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That was a very revealing answer.

In other words you do not believe in a recent creation because such a thing involves a miracle.

I somehow guess people back in Nod East of Eden seven generations after Adam and Eve called them a myth "ah, no, it is a natural fact that all men have a father and a mother, no way there could have been a first man just a few generations ago!"

One may believe in miracles in general, but still argue about the factuality or non-factuality of a particular miracle. My point can, if you care, be restated as: even if you do not believe in miracles yourself, are there any evidence against a recent creation you would like to share with people who, in general philosophical outlook, accept miracles?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
PS, do you mind if I post our discussion on some blog of mine?
Eugene McCarthy
As I say, I think that for people who believe in miracles there is no conceivable evidence that could somehow show that their view is incorrect. Of course, for those who do not believe in miracles such evidence does exist. However, this is not an interesting topic for me, so unless you have an inquiry about some other, unrelated topic, I don't plan to answer any subsequent emails that you send me.

jeudi 6 septembre 2012

Darwinist Claim: Speciation has been Observed in Mammals, Faroese House Mouse

Here is a quote from Wiki:

The faroese House Mouse was probably introduced accidentally from Britain by the irish monks as early as in the 6th century. It is the Western European House Mouse (Mus domesticus) but has earlier been wrongfully labelled as Mus musculus. This naming has also been used to name the sub-species which have evolved in the isolated island populations. The Nólsoy House Mouse is a sub-species called (Mus musculus faroeensis) and the Mykines House Mouse is also a sub-species called (Mus musculus mykinessiensis). Its closest relative was the now extinct St Kilda House Mouse (Mus musculus muralis). Wood Mouse or Field Mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) was recorded on the Faroe Islands in the 17th century, but has not been recorded since. These recordings might have been of House mice mistaken for Wood mice.

Sorry, but subspecies is still microevolution, as much as ring species or band species. Including obviously the Galapago finches. It is still evolution within a kind, not from kind to kind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard / Paris
St Bertrand OP and
My Birthday 44 years

mercredi 5 septembre 2012

For Doctors Involved in Darwinist Thinking (real shorty)

OK, a streptococcus that can be killed with streptomycin will sometimes mutate into one streptomycin resistant variety. And so on with any other bacteria.

But it remains a streptococcus. It does not become a Yersinia Pestis or an Human Immunity Virus.

Precisely as the skin colours and hair structures and nose forms on our view have all evolved very recently (after Noah, Neanderthal being probably an Antediluvian variety, some of the genes of which somehow came into the gene pool of one daughter in law of Noah relevant to Europe and Middle East). But all descendants of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and his three sons and three daighters in law without exception remain men and do not evolve into apes. A degree of evolution which we Creationists term “microevolution”, micro- as in small change. We agree you have seen microevolution, many times over.

But we do not agree you have seen macroevolution, macro- as in big change. Like your streptococci remain streptococci, whatever immunities they develop.

I just read on Creation Ministries International that the streptomycin resistent streptococci or whatever (avtually staphyllococci to whatever antibiotic, including penicilline) that resistent bacteria was can easily be killed off by exposition to non-mutated cousins. But check it out yourself, unless that is spoof. The non-mutated bacteria can then be killed off by appropriate antibiotic, if needed.* Here is one article, as I tried to look it up again:


Hans-Georg Lundahl
St. Raïssa's Day
Sept. 5th, 2012

This link says why this is no good idea for patients already sick:
Warning–don’t try this at home!
Most importantly of all, I would give a major caution, before anyone decides to ignore antibiotics and inject themselves with dirty water! When my article on superbugs referred to rolling in the dirt as a way of more rapidly overcoming the ‘superbugs’ on my skin, this was not in the context of treatment for an established infection. As the article indicated, these bugs were passively colonizing my skin, so the ‘roll in the dirt’ advice I received from a specialist was to ensure that the population on the skin shifted progressively in favour of the more ‘home-brand-normal-variety’ germs. But that is not the same as having a raging infection, and then injecting one type of germ to somehow ‘fight’ another. To inject such ‘homeboy germs’ in any situation would be inviting potential disaster. As I said before in this feedback to someone, et c.

lundi 3 septembre 2012

I Like "Miacis Cognitus"

            The Series:A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)
Further to the Geoscience Major at Texas University
Lost In Translation
AronRa linked to someone actually trying to prove evolution.
AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history?
My Motivation for Arguing Against FFoCr Series
Verifiable Does Not Equal Material and Natural
I Like "Miacis Cognita."
A Letter Arrived from AronRa
Here beginneth our essay:

Miacis cognitus [link to wiki where this quote is from] is the only species of the diverse genus Miacis that is regarded as belonging to the crown-group Carnivora, within the Caniformia[1]. The type specimen or holotype was discovered in Reeve's bonebed, western Texas, in the Chambers Tuff Formation in 1986.[2] The University of Texas holds this specimen. It is the only confirmed fossil of this species. The holotype is missing the mandible, upper canines, and zygomatic arch. The remainder of the skull is damaged, but relatively intact.

Here is by the way from Feliformia:

In the Middle Eocene (about 42 mya) the miacids started to branch into two distinct groups of the order Carnivora: the Feliforms and Caniforms. The miacid precursors to the extant Feliforms remained forest-dwelling, arboreal or semi-arboreal ambush hunters, while the Caniform precursors were more mobile, opportunistic hunters. While it is clear the first Feliforms appeared at this time, there is no clear common ancestor of the Feliform families in the fossil records. As forest dwellers, the early Feliforms were subject to more rapid decomposition in the absence of sedimentary materials, resulting in large gaps in the fossil records.The miacoids are divided into two groups: the miacids, with a full complement of molars, and the viverravines with a reduced number of molars and more specialized carnassials. These dental differences resemble the difference between Caniforms (with more teeth) and Feliforms (with fewer teeth) but this may not mean evolutionary lineages. It was thought that Viverravidae was basal to the Feliforms. However, recent studies suggest this is not the case (Wesley-Hunt and John J. Flynn 2005).[5]

So, now we go to Miacoidea:

Miacoidea is a paraphyletic superfamily that had been traditionally divided into two families of carnivores: Miacidae (the miacids) and Viverravidae.

And to Miacidae:

Some species of the genus Miacis are closely related to the order Carnivora, but only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran, as it is classified in the Caniformia.

But is this a good classification? Look at what is left of only fossil:

No nether part of skull left. How do you decide if caniform or feliform?

Now, problem for Creationism is this would be a transitional fossile if Miacis Cognita was caniform but other miacids developing from it were feliform. You see, the African Palm Civet counts as feliform and also counts as closest lookalike to Miacis Cognita:

In skull morphology alone, the African palm civet, Nandinia binotata takes the prize of looking most like its distant relative.

But with five teeth showing and no nether cranium, can we take the classification as a caniform very seriously? Miacis Cognita means Miacis the Known. It is almost as good a binomial as Homo Sapiens which mean Man the Wise. Man is not always very wise and Miacis is not very known. Least of all as a clear transitional fossile between Caniforms and Feliforms. We have not even any clear transition between civets and weasels, and I seriously doubt if anything counts as clear transition between cats and civets or between weasels and dogs or bears.

To my amateur scientist and creationist mind, this is an epic fail.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Biblio/BiJ de Limay
3. sept 2012
Martyrs de la Révolution
(si je ne me trompe pas)