Gina

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 10:12 AM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

Marvin the Martian

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 10:24 AM

Isn't Gillard an Atheist?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 11:22 AM

Marv, she sure is. But in the same week that she 'came out as a non-believer', she affirmed that she would not make any changes to allow same sex marriage and she has previously supported the federally funded chaplaincy program for all state schools.

Despite her lack of belief, she needs votes.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 11:23 AM

Gina, if Australian politics does not interest you, feel free not to read/comment.

Rodney

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 12:20 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Perhaps she's just not interested in "Jake's standard rant" #547.

Come on man; I'm sure you're not as one-dimensional as you are coming across? Is there no other topic in the entire universe you can write about? Is there nothing else at all to the man that is Jake?

I get this is a big thing to you - I really, really, REALLY do.... but maybe, just maybe, it's not that big a thing to everyone else? You are really drawing a long bow to cry "persecuted" or "under privileged", in Australia, for being atheist. It's probably the least religious country on Earth.

As you say, policy is in the numbers. If it make people happy to be able to donate to a charity which doesn't pay tax, and looks after homeless people, etc, then who gives a shit? Would you rather shut down 90% of the charities in this country, because *you* don't like Jesus? I don't like him either, but I don't spend every second of my entire life screaming about it, as you seem to.

I accept that some charities are getting a tax free ride and in return, are looking after a hell of a lot of people, which the government cannot afford to look after - without increasing taxes by, as you say, $30 billion. At least this way it's voluntary.

I likewise don't care if these charities don't pass 100% of donations on to the poor because guess what - no charities do. World Vision (in particular) is known for spending almost half the money you give them on their own salaries and many other big ones are just as bad. Oxfam and others all have several corruption allegations against them, around the World.

What's your alternative? Shut down the good sammies and so on and just increase taxes? Force people to donate to secular charity? Perhaps your own charity? Why? for what benefit? What possible gain is there in that outcome except pleasing you personally? That's just "shifting deckchairs".

And by the way, a full disclosure would have been to say "I am a member of the party I am sprucing for in this article and I am therefore in effect asking for your vote", don't you think??

Gina

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 12:39 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. "Perhaps she's just not interested in "Jake's standard rant" #547. "

Zzzing!

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 01:24 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Rodney, where on earth did you come up with 'persecuted' and 'under-privelaged'. You've put both words in quotes, so I'd be very interested to see where in the article you grabbed them from.

Few things phase me, mate, but I have to say, you've managed to really piss me off. You ask for diversity whilst writing about what one is passionate about, about stuff from the news and what have I [expletive] provided here?

Charities, I have no problem with, churches I do. Churches buying up vast areas of prime property and then crying when their portfolio drops by AU$200m as the NSW anglicans did last year, do they deserve to pay no land tax? Churches like the Catholic churches accross Australia who have liquidated much of their prime properties and have not paid a cent in capital gains tax, are you ok with that?

What about the churches that make hundreds of millions in selling their documentaries and pay no GST? It seems to work for hillsong, sh*t they've got padded leather chairs so that their morons can speak in tongues in comfort.

I don't have a problem with Jesus, I have a problem with a supposedly secular government not forcing churches to document their revenue as they do with every other business in this country. Without accountability, they can piss wherever they like. And they have. Scientology is a perfect example.

Charities are organisations that we, if so inclined, can all get behind. This year I've run, rode and swam over 300km collectively in the name of charity, secular charity.

I am a member of the secular party, but I have no intention of swaying people's votes. The message at the end of the post makes it clear.

I write a news article, I get 50-100 hits. I write an article on religion or politics in religion or science, well, I published this 2 hours ago and it is at 166 hits. As we've both acknowledged, it's in the numbers.

Rodney, if you have no opinion on a subject, feel free not to share it. As for me, I do.

Matt

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 01:36 PM

Rodney, Australia is very very far from being the least religious country in the world. As Jake mentioned in his article, Australia has had stongly christian leaders in the recent past (and possibly again in the near future) who let their supernatural beliefs impact on policy decisions. This is to the detriment of the nation as a whole and to progress in the scientific age.

Scandanavia, Japan, New Zealand all have governments which are far less religious than Australia.

Rodney

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 02:04 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Jake, writing about religion but ticking a different tag is not diversity. The article is highly comparable to your back catalogue of articles. The key point of the article can be summed up to "Jake does not like religion". You have over 400 such articles, constituting over 80% of your "back catalogue". Perhaps a quick reference of the word "diversity" is in order?

Also - 166 hits from the same 5 people is 5 hits, in my opinion...

In my work in the financial sector, I have had clients including churches. Large ones. So far as I recall from their reporting - they did have separate financial entities to handle property and the like - because they do pay taxes on those activities. I helped one large organisation come up with reporting methods for multiple companies for this very reason. So I'm interested to hear why you think that just because they're a church, they're exempt from all tax. Our government is not stupid enough to throw away large sums of tax revue, when they don't have to.

I am sure there are examples of churches stepping around tax payments. I hear there's a fairly good chance I can find examples of mining companies doing this too. I have even heard a rumour that one or two citizens are not paying as much tax as they perhaps should be.

I am happy to admit that the points in your article are valid questions. What erks me about them is they are the only ones you ever ask.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 03:25 PM

Sweden is the least religious country in the world. Australia doesn't make top 10.

I honestly would like to know what makes Jake tick other than religion. It's the only drum I've ever heard you beat. And Rodney makes some very good points.

"Rodney, if you have no opinion on a subject, feel free not to share it. As for me, I do."

Sounds like Rodney has a strong opinion on the subject. I just don't think it matches up with yours.

OMG

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 04:16 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Sure some people don't pay tax, but this is illegal. It is legal for churches not to pay tax. This seems a bit unfair Rodney. Perhaps you shouldn't just oppose Jake for the sake of it. He's arguing that religions should have to pay tax, but you are not arguing the opposite, or anything like it.

Present an argument, or at least further the debate rather than just going on your own personal rant.

Tony Fyler

Thursday 22nd July 2010 | 05:18 PM

Politics is the art of the achievable, isn't it? And atheists and secularists (and I appreciate some here might find this difficult to believe) are largely a silent minority, albeit, in numerical terms, a highly significant one. But surely the trick to politics is striking enough of a balance to get you elected and keep you in power. The point about which is that while we may be a highly significant minority, standing on a platform that appeals mainly to us a) isn't enough, on its own, to get you elected to anything in national politics, so we'd have to win over (I'm generalising here) significant swathes of liberal-thinking people to what (to keep the more 'angry' elements of secularism onboard) would probably have to be a fairly radical agenda...and that simply wouldn't happen, and b) would be a recognisably nightmarish scenario for any politician, because no-one wants to owe their position to a single powerful minority, because if they do, they have to KEEP pleasing that minority, all the time they're in government, and that's neither practical, nor, probably, a very good model of governance.

Should all or most of the policies you highlight (same-sex equlity, male-female equality, access to abortions, the homeopathist's new clothes being ripped off etc etc) be enacted? Yes, of course I think so. Should there be a secularist movement? Yes, why not, let's at least make our voice heard in the corridors of power. But the reality of politics and the numbers are still, at this point, against us.

gilly

Friday 23rd July 2010 | 09:30 AM

Jake there are Christians who pay taxes you know
Reiki followers and Chiropractor and acupuncture supporters who pay taxes all. They also pay health funds

You want a dictatorship
You want another Hitler to rise and control everything to suit athiesm
Rambling insanity

"Euthanasia is still largely illegal and abortion has not yet been universally decriminalised."
Because right now the majority of this country dont support euthanasia and abortion

"Largely untrained church chaplains are in many state schools around the country. They are not counsellors, but are fully federally funded."
Because right now the majority of this country see that there can be some benefit in Christs
teachings and they are funded from my taxes and other Christians taxes

"Every state school around the country has a funded special religious education (Christian teachings) once a week. This is not bible reading but Christian indoctrination and has no basis in reality. This time could be better spent in maths, science, English, geography, sport, social studies".
Every state school teaches the religion of evolution as a fact and not everybody believes it, it has no basis in reality and its compulsory

"Further to this, the marriage laws still prevent a recognised union (and therefore completely equal rights) between same sex couples."
This gets me the most
Why would a non Christian want to get married I have never understood that
Marriage is from God Unless like everything with you its about MONEY
Seriously though for me its not a big issue, if homosexuals want to get married for the financial benefits fine, though Marriage is a Biblical teaching


"Women still fight for completely equal status, rights and privilege, and while this is largely a historical attribute, it is one which has always been supported by biblical (New Testament) and Koranic misogyny"
Was that you patronising Gina earlier
Hypocrite, blame others for what you do Thats pahetic
Go quote mine the Bible me. You need a roll of toilet paper hanging of your necklace to wipe your chin
You make this stuff up Women in the NT are equal to men

"Furthermore, we still have ‘alternative health’ services such as homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractor and kinesiology which private health funds provide rebates for, and charlatans like psychics and ‘reiki healers’. Why? Because they are recognised as ‘professionals’ despite not having any reality based qualifications"
You are a dictator
People can choose. Its a God given right you arrogant snob
Even Health Funds can see that
You want the public purse to suit you

What a hatefull hypocritical nasty little snob you are

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 23rd July 2010 | 10:44 AM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Yes, Gilly, I'm a dictator.

Unfortunately for you Gilly, I am able to research. Euthanasia and abortion have received majority support in every news poll that I was able to find. The leaders of the country are the ones who must bring such things to vote, and yet their priority seems to be maintaining their profiles in the eyes of the voter.

The move to bring church chaplains into state schools is acknowledged as a major breach of secularism. It was brought in by the last liberal government who did so unashamedly. At the time, as a christian, I supported it. The reason for this is that there is a massive difference between what children are taught and what is actually in the bible.

Evolution is fact. Your inability to understand it is no surprise, but referring to it as a religion as a way to defame it, does nothing but degrade religion in general. "Look at those evil atheists who believe in evolution, they're stupid, just like we are... hahaha."

Marriage existed prior to the bible, as did humanity, ancestors of humanity and homosexuality. I'm married and I deny the existence of any and all gods which humanity has created. Currently, if I had a long term same sex partner and he were in a severe car accident, I would not be permitted to see him. This is inequitable. Same sex couples deserve the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

People go to alternative health practitioners because their health funds offer a rebate on their services, however none of these services actually have any evidence of providing benifit. The health fund's support of these services amounts to advertising a service which will have literally no benifit.

Have a great day, Gilly.

gilly

Friday 23rd July 2010 | 03:07 PM

Yes Jake you are a dictator
Whatever Jake
You deny others the lives they choose to live and your arrogant snobbery blinds you
Politicians chase votes Duh!
Do whatever Jake

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 23rd July 2010 | 05:44 PM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Many thanks for your permission.

Gina

Friday 23rd July 2010 | 11:25 PM

I personally believe it's better to have a secular government. Religiously-based governments are just begging people to break moral laws, or at least make them desire to. It's the old... "Don't stick your finger in the light socket!" mentality. People, especially, immature people, always usually seem to want to do the very opposite they're told (or ordered). For proof, Gilly, just take a look at mother Eve and countless others for religious proofs "You must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." And here's one of my own favorites from childhood, Jake: "Stop crying or I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO CRY ABOUT!" and "You're not leaving this table until you've eaten at least one vegetable." You can't legislate morality. Likewise, just because a secular government legalizes abortion, for example (which I am not exactly for), doesn't mean all the people of the country are going to go out and get abortions. In fact, they might be less likely to, or even need to get an abortion because (1) it's something they can do, and (2) it's coming from a source few trust regardless of who's sitting in the seat -- Government.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 24th July 2010 | 05:13 AM

...in response to this comment by Gina. Gina, none of what you listed has anything to do with morality, at least not common sense, evolution of society based morality. You listed god's morality; do what I say or else.

In my house, instead of saying, don't stick your finger in the light socket, we teach the girls what electricity is and how it effects them when they come into contact with it.

The consequences for not eating vegetables is not enough fibre in the diet, which for those of us with coleiac's means constipation.

All governments legislate morality; can't kill, can't steal (those are the only two which bare any similarity to god's big 10) don't rape, don't molest, don't vandalise, no slavery, rights must not disadvantage anyone/group and so on.

Gina

Saturday 24th July 2010 | 09:41 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. All governments legislate morality; can't kill, can't steal (those are the only two which bare any similarity to god's big 10) don't rape, don't molest, don't vandalise, no slavery, rights must not disadvantage anyone/group and so on.

That's not entirely true, Jake, and you know it. But I'm not getting into a debate with you that. I'm ending it here.

Good night

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 24th July 2010 | 03:56 PM

...in response to this comment by Gina. I love it, Gina. I have this conversation a few times a week now days; someone gets called on something they say and they respond with, "I didn't come here to talk to you about that"...

Gina

Saturday 24th July 2010 | 08:37 PM

Jake,

Go ahead and put me down if it makes you feel better.

Have a good night.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 06:11 AM

It doesn't make me feel better. You raised a point which I refuted, and instead of acknowledging it or discussing it, you exclaimed 'I don't want to get into this with you now'. That is totally fine, but a complete cop out.

It is what, as I alluded to above, my J-DUb and Mormon friends often say when something exciting enters the subject matter.

gilly

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 08:01 AM

"You listed god's morality; do what I say or else."

Jake your words are stupid as is your argument

DO WHAT I SAY OR ELSE is the standard by what adhering to any law is conducted by

If you speed do the Police give you a warm mug of Milo and a cuddle
If you are late for work do you get a bunch of flowers and a box of Tim tams
If you steal does your conscience give you a warm fuzzy feeling and a restful night
If your nasty to your child do they help and confide in you

Tip for you Jake
This world is a "do as I say or else" world Wake up
God made it so you could see the consequences of SIN
La La land Jake la la land

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 10:02 AM

Where the hell did that come from Gilly, this is way out on left field!

gilly

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 10:27 AM

Where did it come from?
It comes from here Jake......your words


"Gina, none of what you listed has anything to do with morality, at least not common sense, evolution of society based morality. You listed god's morality; do what I say or else. "

Didnt realise you were so simple
The universe is based on Do as I say or else

Gina

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 11:18 AM

Gilly, that was perfect. Thank you.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 11:46 AM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Ha, you're a classy guy gilly, misinterpreting the most simply worded statements to your own end.

Obviously, what I had said was that legislating morality based on a theistic worldview is do as god says or else. This is obviously not the way that western society is run.

Our societies are quite clear in the judgement of breaking a law and the implications for doing so whereas the religious worldview is that if a sin is committed, as documented in the bible, then you are sent to an imaginary fiery theme-park to be tortured for eternity.

Gina

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 11:55 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Please, Jake, we've already been over that a zillion times. It's not literal fire. And it's not for "eternity."

gilly

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 01:14 PM

Yes eternity in fire

" judgement of breaking a law and the implications for doing so"

sin is committed (breaking a law), as documented in the bible, then you are sent( judgement) to an imaginary fiery theme-park to be tortured for eternity (implications for doing ). Hell or prison

Commit sin and be punished
You said it

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 03:12 PM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Sin is an invention, sin is not real. You can't offend an imaginary sky pixie, can you? No.

gilly

Sunday 25th July 2010 | 07:38 PM

So Jake what do you call breaking the law
an OOpsy a naughty a boo boo a crime

Playing with words Petty snob


Big Bang and evolution Repeatable testable observable NOT

Sky pixies, you believe in it you just CHOOSE different words

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 26th July 2010 | 07:41 AM

Breaking a reality based law in reality has reality based consequences. You are given a realistic punishment and carry out the punishment in reality.

Sin is not reality based, it is imaginary based, you have an infinite punishment for a finite action.

The big bang is a theory based on other theories which are testable, observable and repeatable. For example, we can test for cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation or the wavelengths of photons to see that the universe was once much hotter, smaller and brighter.

Evolution is also repeatable, testable and observable. Genomics allows us to peek into and uncover the incredible journeys that our genes took to arive at this form. Natural Selection has also been observed in Lenski's e. Coli experiment.

You've chosen to believe something in spite of the evidence. I have read the evidence and made a decission.

Steve

Monday 26th July 2010 | 07:25 PM

Jake, well done on remaining composed and presenting reasonable, logical and coherent arguments to back up your position.

It's unfortunate that Gina and gilly feel the need to resort to disingenuous comments and personal attacks.

I guess their behaviour is understandable though, since they don't appear to have a rational position to defend.

T-Mac

Monday 26th July 2010 | 08:10 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Euthanasia and abortion?

wow, which one of your kids will you give up first or will you step up to the plate and end yourself?

with todays advancements in medicine we all may make it to be euthanasia candidates eventually, you may as well get started be doing your part. Many may respond to your example.

or are you too important to the gene pool? so can you tell me where to start in my family?

you have me convinced. Thin the herd.

gilly

Monday 26th July 2010 | 08:21 PM

Natural Selection has also been observed in Lenski's e. Coli experiment.

You've chosen to believe something in spite of the evidence

A ha ha ha ah Ha ha ha
A ha ha ah ha hah


Lenskis e coli experiment was a complete and utter failure
You sure are a funny little fellow
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog

Basically Lenski is hiding the evidence cos its his secret
You cant read the evidence you twit Lenski still hasnt released it Duh Jake

T-Mac

Tuesday 27th July 2010 | 10:59 AM

Gilly

there is no evidence scientific or otherwise that will convince me it is justified to thin the herd.

The difference between us and animals is our soul and that soul is what gives us the ability to know right from wrong

I guess when you and your storm troopers come for me I'll have to hunker down with my bible and my rifle

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 07:05 AM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Gilly,

I've read Lenski's paper, not some abridged version that your conservapedia has spun up for ease of reading.

The 'experiment', as with many ultra long term studies, is not a success/fail type study, but an observational study.

Also, considering that one of the groups of e. Coli evolved the ability to metabolise citrate and then passing this trait onto their offspring, proves the theory of natural selection as this was a trait that allowed the organism to better survive it's environment.

That said, I doubt you would understand any of this. Perhaps I should have just conceded and said, 'praise Jesus'.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 07:10 AM

...in response to this comment by T-Mac. T-Mac, welcome to RustyLime.

What the hell has euthanasia got to do with 'thinning the herd'?

Euthanasia, or the right to die with dignity, is used for those individuals with terminal conditions who have made the choice to end their life prior to loosing their faculties.

My Grandfather lobbied for this prior to succumbing to dementia after having had a stroke in his late 80s. Alas, he enjoyed having visits from his family who he did not recognise.

Those with ALS, who slowly degenerate to a vegetable, those who have been in pain for many years with inoperable tumours etc. Would you deny them the right to die with dignity?

When euthanasia is legal, it will be in my will. I will not be a burden to the people I love.

T-Mac

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 11:44 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Euthanasia, abortion, sterilization, genocide

all tools of chairman Mao, and Hitler

these RL'ers are waistin their mind power dreamin up conspiracies and here in america we're giving our Freedom away because we're too apathetic to be accountable for our selves...

We beg the government to care for us from cradvle to grave

with each new entitlement we forgoe some measure of freedom

hell there is no need for a conspiracy on either side we're givin our freedom away everytime we ask the government for more help

Gina

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 12:59 PM

...in response to this comment by T-Mac. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................... Sorry, man, but you lost me at "these RL'ers.."

Gilly

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 02:54 PM

Escherichia coli (source here)

The experimental work involved keeping 12 strains of the bacterium E. coli in a medium where there was glucose for them to metabolise, but also a plentiful supply of citrate. "Examining E. coli cultures that his lab has maintained since 1988, Lenski found that one population of the bacterium had evolved the ability to metabolize citrate - an unprecedented trait - after more than 30,000 generations, or approximately 15 years." Using samples preserved from earlier stages of this extended experiment, the research team established that one of the 12 populations gained a hidden mutation after about 20,000 generations. Only this population later developed the ability to metabolise citate. Thus, it can be inferred that "this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."


"It's a very elegant demonstration that major changes may depend on accretion of minor changes before hand," said Albert Bennett, a University of California, Irvine evolutionary physiologist who gave Lenski feedback on the study before it was published in PNAS. "What's really demonstrated here is that the way has to be paved before hand."

This research is being hailed as a vindication of evolutionary theory against the sceptics:

"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

There are several observation that should be made before reaching general conclusions. The first relates to the machinery needed to metabolise citrate. The system to do this is already largely in place, but one enzyme is lacking. This is the comment from Mike Behe:


"Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it's not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a "citrate permease" which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell's membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, "The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions."
Consequently, it is at least worth asking the question whether the E.coli bacterium had, in the past, lost the ability to metabolise citrate and what we are now seeing is a restoration of that damaged system. If this were the case, we should not be talking about "a major evolutionary innovation" but rather about the way complex systems can be impaired by mutations.

As yet, it is not known what mutations were involved. But clearly, if there were two, and if the first was needed before the second could complete the job, the experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve orchestrated changes. This was exactly the point of Behe's study of ways of achieving resistance to malaria. In his words:


"I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. "If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect - if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state - then there is already a big evolutionary problem." And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation."

So, far from this research being "another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists", it demonstrates a major problem for those evolutionists who want to claim Darwinism can achieve major transformations. These mutations are not only rare, they are also useless without the pre-existence of a biochemical system that can turn the products of mutation into something beneficial. Behe writes:


"If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they


It’s a good thing Dr. Behe quickly dispelled the significance of this experiment. It saves us a lot of work having to trudge through the overhyped claims in the paper. Basically, the E. coli already had the machinery to digest citrate, but just lacked a gateway to get the nutrient inside, which was not that improbable a hurdle for a couple of mutations to permit. This accomplishment is orders of magnitude simpler than the kind of luck required to build the machinery in the first place. It’s like blindly pushing and finding a weakness in a fence. This is all the longest-running lab experiment in evolution was able to accomplish in 20 years of trying, with almost 40,000 generations. Are you impressed? If you can tell a lawyer is lying when his lips are moving, you can tell an evolutionist is lying when the reporters go wild about how Darwin has been vindicated.

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=116

That said, I doubt you would understand any of this. Perhaps I should have just conceded and said, Praise Dawkins

T-Mac

Wednesday 28th July 2010 | 07:59 PM

...in response to this comment by Gina. replace RL'ers it with conspiracy theorists and angry aethieists

regardless it's not going to be some conspiracy that brings us down here in America, we're drinkin the cool-aid by the gallon and they are telling us what they are going to do and we ask for more

The reality is there is no reason for our enemies to attack us militarily, have patience and the once great America will fall (sooner rather than later under current leadership)

we will end up either irrelevant or incapable or great things because of our irresponsible governing and pandering by our elected officials

America has been exceptional so far in history, regardless if you love us or hate us and the populist apathy here is insuring we won't be exceptional moving forward

There is a reason so many immigrants have come and continue to come here and that is indivdual liberty, rights and opportunity not collective entitlements

some would say America isn't perfect, I say show me a place with more individual opportunity

I love God, I love my family and I love America in that order and it is disheartening to see Americans begging for this half assed socialism the jackasses in Washington are scared to call socialism

If you're socialist and like it great good for you hopefully your in a place that embraces it, if your American you are free to move about the world... go get some

don't lie and force that shit down my throat America is the land of the free

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 30th July 2010 | 09:29 AM

...in response to this comment by Gilly. Gilly,

What Behe failed to acknowledge, and he has been called on this a number of times, was that while SOME strains e. Coli have the ability to metabolise citrates, the particular strain used in the Lenski experiment did not have this trait. In fact, one of the defining characteristics used to differentiate one strain of e. Coli from another is its inherrant ability/inability to metabolise citrates.

The particular strain used in the Lenski experiment evolved the ability to metabolise citrates and through natural selection, the e. Coli with this mutation propogated the tank.

The experiment both proved natural selection and evolution. How was this a failure?

Lastly, and for future reference, prior to the paper being released to any scientific journal, it must pass the peer review. As such, to suggest that any of the findings was 'overhyped' or anything other than represented is both falacy and defamation.

In the grand scheme of things, Gilly, you and Behe have something in common, you are both f*cking insignificant. You reject scientific fact and refer to it as 'religion' despite the literally insurmountable evidence supporting it. You, sir, are an imbecile.

Even the desendants of the 12 Tribes, todays Jews, the authors of the more entertaining half of the bible you class as inerrant, accept evolution. Many of the greatest biologists, chemists and physicists today are Jewish and find their faith undeterred by the discoveries of our origins.

But of course, you're welcome to your belief that a magical sky-pixie pulled the universe out of it's arse and into existence, it just labels you a moron.

Henk V

Friday 30th July 2010 | 10:43 AM

oh yes it must be overwhelmingly difficult to understand a major cut and paste job. Mama Bear and Baby bear only copy things.

Goldilocks, it must be painful for you to recognise that scientists and technologists have to rely on facts as it is recorded in the literature. You rely on fanciful entertainments that started being written down in the 6th century BCE. You know stuff they had to sort from the rubbish previous generations believed to be true and stamp it with their nouveau version of reality.

The fact that genesis was cobbled from their own beliefs and the current Babylonian mythology has escaped you. If you actually read and compared the genesis myths in the bible you would see this disparity. So for a believer, you are an unbeliever.

Of course, the above may be far too difficult for you to understand. This sets you apart from all other 12 year olds.


Jake, well put, again. Especially since e. coli must be one of the most obscure organisms in the world. Only noticed in the heads of science deniers and the ultimately gullible where the environmental conditions are "just right".

Henk V

Friday 30th July 2010 | 11:02 AM

getting back on topic,

I have to state, I am not an atheist as I try not to believe in anything. I've noticed that everyone has a different concept of god (a personal jesus at times) and that concept changes geographically, temporally, and by lack of interpretation. Everyone's god is absurd in comparison to everyone else's god. This at the personal level is astounding.

Now churches influencing political decisions is obscene whether the way out there sects like christianity (in toto), islam or judaism or the slightly more ridiculous (but no less cruel) sects such as buddhism of hinduism.

To me a church representative having the ear of a politician is like Deepak Chopra influencing medical policy. Its happened here, the church has sought to knee cap political process repeatedly to its own end. Its allowed its proselytising to continue and it refutes all blame for geopolitical disasters.

Having a crackpot group of "80's Politburo" influencing politicians rather than having a party of committed, religiously uninfluenced, politicians running a country where the first and foremost science, education, health and infrastructure budgets should be supremely fair, we have curmudgeons of religious puppets stamping their own "faith based morals" (ie bullshit) upon the populace.

And you think we have crackpots? You should see places like Haiti, Honduras, USA, and Mexico...

No wonder e. coli (cranialis) proliferates.

Gilly

Friday 30th July 2010 | 04:57 PM

Did I blaspheme your faith again Jake

Read it slower and think about it a little harder

Basically, the E. coli already had the machinery to digest citrate, but just lacked a gateway to get the nutrient inside, which was not that improbable a hurdle for a couple of mutations to permit

Hank, yes I cut and paste because I cant be bothered wasting all my time on people like you
If people Christian Jewish or the religious athiests like Jake and you want to believe in evolution thats fine by me Cool
The Bible states creation


and you know the difference from Macro and Micro evolution yet Jake
#Yawn # *Sigh*
Evolutards evidence free
Its still e coli, its not a frog He He ha ha hu hu huh

Marvin the Martian

Saturday 31st July 2010 | 06:40 AM

If I might chime in for a second... It seems like Gilly is looking for any organism to spontaneously eveolve into a more modern version overnight. Seems odd really as mutations arise generation after generation, it would (and has) taken millions of years of slow progress.

Now I know what is coming next... Shoe me the intermediate species. Well, go to any museum and you will see the fossil records from many different species, the intermediates, and more modern counterparts.

The idea that we are the hight of the evolution of man is rediculous! we are the most modern form of humans - at the moment - but we are still evolving as we speak.

But I think and explanation like this is lost on those who believe 1 book contains the entire sum total, moral and historical truth.

Henk V

Saturday 31st July 2010 | 01:57 PM

As I said to Jake this morning.. Firefox down was ok...but there was a lot of cobblers in the movie.

Papa and I finally agree on another thing, those Sukhois look red hot covered under a tarp in a hangar.. One day they might fly and be red hot..Like the ones in the 90's

Is goldilocks still pushing his blithering batshit about creationism? Maybe if he didn't work at a cosmetics counter at a hair dressing salon... you know, those places where women pay other people to get cancer and lupus on their behalf..

Nice seeing you again, keep your iludium Q space modulator polished.

gilly

Saturday 31st July 2010 | 02:01 PM

No not overnight and not modern........just.......... any organism to spontaneously evolve, will do fine
Dont play the arrogant smug card
You believe dirt and water makes mankind, and your explanation is based on millions and millions of years, again the evidence is lacking Prove millions and millions of years
Transitional fossils? If scientists admit they cant find them why the hell should I accept you have found them Martian
Thats scientific ignorance

Henk V

Saturday 31st July 2010 | 02:15 PM

theres a moisturiser that claims to fix that Goldilocks.


I think you need just a bit more than a good collagen implant... try not accepting the intradental modality as its clearly advised in firefox down...

Henk V

Saturday 31st July 2010 | 02:55 PM

Jake, I will take you to task on Koranic misogyny and I hope you have a copy handy (as I do).

Religion is belief. So is ridiculous alt medicine.

If you view the world through beliefs, you are no longer necessary. Just work somewhere innocuous like a cannery or a burger bar.

You cannot say that Islam is any more or less ludicrous than any other religion. Even more or less wicked or more or less righteous. I really wish that the three monotheisms were better understood by each other and..their practitioners.

I will go as far as to state from history, observation and oratory that Uri Geller and the Dalai Llama are the greatest fakes foisted on the USA entertainment industry. And like Brad Pitt they are recognised for their contribution to modernity. Fuck all your honour.


Does that mean that Buddhists, Jews and impressionists (yes Brad Pitt impersonates acting) should be eschewed? Well only the ones with guns, bent spoons, 230 CIA millions or a bleach rinse and a bed side nut cracker.

Lets face it, most people are genuine, only their idols are fake...

New atheism is a bit like that.. its easy to pick on one religion and the sect of another.

When you realise religion is just another way of expressing ingrained but selective Luddism you can see why its appealing... nearly everyone I have met has a Luddite view on something.

Ever met an economist?