Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 04:37:38 -0700, "Andrew" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Attila" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not possible, except in the realm of fantasy. But
>>>>>>>>>>> for those who want the truth, science will always
>>>>>>>>>>> be the way to go, and not unscientific fantasy!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am constantly amused by how you insist anything involving
>>>>>>>>>> your silly superstition is based on science yet anything in
>>>>>>>>>> the arena of possible scientific investigation is fantasy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't know the difference between
>>>>>>>>> "possible science"(fantasy) and "empirical science".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What conservation laws would be violated if an organic, self- replicating molecule
>>>>>>>> would be artificially synthesized?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying that it is "artificially synthesized", rather than, "naturally synthesized".
>>>>>>> Therefore you acknowledge that a high *Intelligence* was involved in its Creation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you, Dawn!
>>>>>>> Do you get the picture now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, have you ever heard of "artificial selection"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think that natural selection, which took eons,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could 'natural selection' explain our origins? No, because
>>>>>>> 'natural selection' can only select from .that which *already*
>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, sure, artificial selection involves intelligence (humans),
>>>>>> which is why it can happen so very quickly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The domestic dog is the first species, and the only large carnivore, to have been domesticated. The first dogs were certainly
>>>>>> wolflike, but the phenotypic changes that coincided with the dog-wolf genetic divergence are not known.[15] Dogs are the most
>>>>>> variable mammal on earth with around 450 globally recognized dog breeds.[2] In the Victorian era, directed human selection
>>>>>> developed the modern dog breeds, which resulted in a vast range of phenotypes.[15] Most breeds were derived from small numbers
>>>>>> of founders within the last 200 years,[15][2] and since then dogs have undergone rapid phenotypic change and were formed into
>>>>>> today's modern breeds due to artificial selection imposed by humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, so, yes, with an intelligent agent, evolution can happen very quickly!
>>>>>
>>>>>That's speciation  rather than evolution.
>>>>
>>>> First, speciation *is* evolution.
>>>
>>>Do they evolve into a higher taxonomic level?
>>
>> Sure.
>
>It is true that they do, but only according to your
>religion. You have a "non-theist religion". You
>are a."believer" contrary to - real world science.

No, it's creationism that's pseudoscience, not mainstream biology.  

>> The fossil record clearly shows higher taxa evolving.
>
>Yes, but only if you interpret it to fit your-->false religion.
>________________________________________
>
>"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
> lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
> but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
> time story-"

Gee was an enthusiastic supporter of cladistics, where ancestors are
not sought after, only shared common ancestry.  So there were no
"lines" of ancestor-descendant series in his approach to paleontology
(which by now has become standard in that field) -- so it's no
evolutionary ladders, only evolutionary "bushes" in his approach. 

> "From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
>  fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
>  what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
>  we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."

You know next to nothing about science, so you retreat to your
out-of-contexts quotes from your quote mine.  If you want to quote
Gee, you should include quotes like these for balance: 

In his book _In Search of Deep Time_ ,  he writes: 

"That my cat Fred and I really have a common ancestor is not in doubt"
(p. 37).

>"Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
>  knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
>  all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."

More Gee from the same book: 

"Even though it is impossible to know for certain whether one species
is the ancestor of another, we do know that any two organisms found on
Earth must be cousins in some degree." (p. 155).

So do you see the rejection of ancestor-descendant lines, replaced buy
cousin-cousin patterns?  (That's shared common ancestry, of course). 

>  "Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
>   knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
>   all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."

That's ridiculous.  You're going to need to provide a reference for
that.  In fact, the fossil record is quite suggestive of evolution.  
Notable examples of this include mammal-like reptiles (intermediate in
form between mammals and reptiles),  australopithecines and other
ancient hominids intermediate between apes and humans,  ichthyostegids
intermediate between fish and amphibians, _Basilosaurus_ intermediate
between whales and land animals, dinosaurs intermediate between
reptiles and birds, seymouriamorphs intermediate between amphibians
and reptiles, and_Hyracotherium_ intermediate between horses and early
perissodactyls. 



>                      ~ Henry Gee,
>                          Senior editor, "Nature"