cathy wrote:His generalised and non-specific assertion that the claim by evolutionary scientists that natural selection would do immeasurably more than humans' selective breeding could ever do was wrong because the facts show 'the opposite';
I don't understand this, but I guess he was relying on the fact that 99.99% of the audience (with you as the 0.01%) didn't have a clue about any science and couldn't give a flying monkeys either as they were already brain washed by the religious points into blind acceptance. Natural selection of millions of years is incredibly powerful.Aaargh, well done for not vomiting when you heard this tiresome old crap yet again. What about the Spanish Inquisition whom nobody expects - they weren't atheists. And a long list of other bad religios.Though not a bad man (ie not like Stalin or Mao who were evolutionists and atheists)And? Its like playing cards, you have a random hand, you pick up, if bad for your hand you discard, if neutral mnah, but if good you keep. Until you get what you want. Natural selection deals with the few beneficial but is very powerful. So he's a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!He stated that genetic mutations are all near-neutral or harmful;Well I think its called natural selection.How on earth could 'DNA check and repair' (which seeks to prevent copying mistakes ie mutations) have come about by evolution?I doubt it very much! What evidence did he give to prove known chemistry couldn't have come up with it in steps? Let guess here - was it ummmm - none?He thought the Krebs Cycle revealed a system that was 'irreducibly complex'.he expressed the view that the 'power' behind evolution (which he believes is Satan) wants the church 'extinct'.
I'm afraid I really loathe and detest people who keep telling this lie because it is the only lie necessary to BULLY the hundreds of chirstians who would much rather be allowed to accept science and just get on with their lives and their worshipping without having to be morons!!!!!!! Do you know, much as I hate overuse of the word evil which I've always thought should be reserved for people like Ram Singh, I'm going to make an exception for people who use this lie. Which is a measure of how disgusted with it I am.
On the opening point above, I THINK he was saying that natural selection ALONE is conservative ie things are selected against and the gene pool narrows if that is all which happens. Which it isn't.
As I understand it, DNA check and repair is how some mutations within cell nucleii are PREVENTED. (Presumably because a lot of the spelling mistakes can have serious consequences for the individual concerned so they might die before breeding/be unable to breed/be selected against by females/become catholic priests and have no offspring; so the population gradually contains more and more individuals with/descended from those people with the advantageous ability to not pass on a tendency towards bad mutations?! I may be getting this bit wrong - not sure.)
He had lots of power point slides with various axioms and the like printed on them, but didn't cover every point verbally (he still overran slightly). I can't recall whether he elaborated further on Krebs (other than using some technical terms about how it works that is).