# Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2013)

James Madison: "...a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

Knowledge for an informed debate.....



1.	Demographic studies show that religious families consistently have more children. Parents invest enormous amount of time, money and emotional energy into raising their children, only to lose them to secular worldviews pounded into their minds through public education and the entertainment culture. A study in Britain found that non-religious parents have a near 100% chance of passing their views to their children, whereas religious parents have only about a 50/50 chance of passing on their views.   
Breeding for God

The reason? 
Government schooling which pushes secularization, and post modern concepts, i.e., those not necessarily based on truth.




2.	Perhaps as a consequence of the above, there is a growing number of Europeans who want schools to cover evolution and creation

a." More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons  a proportion higher than in the US. .... "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.".... Advocates of intelligent design argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence." Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons | Science | The Guardian

bthe most blatant attempt to ban evolution from the classrooms occurred in Italy in 2004. Letizia Moratti, then education minister, caused a public outcry when she removed the theory of evolution from the curricula of Italys middle schools2 on the grounds that  *teaching Darwins theory of evolution can instill a materialist view of life in young minds.*

c A recent study by Observa Science in Society, a Vicenza-based body that             promotes* informed debate on scientific issues, shows that only 11% of Italians support the exclusion of Darwinism from curricula. But almost two thirds would prefer lessons to cover both evolutionary theory and the creationist view. *

d. According to a 2005 US study, just* 40% of Americans accepted the theory of evolution, down from 45% in 1985. * (Miller, J. D. et al. Science 313, 765766 (2006).
http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

e.   Microevolution, the adaptation of  species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But *macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, theres no observational evidence for that. * Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germanys Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim.                      http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf




Again:
*"But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, theres no observational evidence for that."
*

The fact that there is no observable evidence for one species 'evolving' into another, and no fossil-trail for same, is, as much as possible, kept assiduously hidden from the public.

This fact alone should give one pause.







3.	The idea that *secularization* is the irreversible wave of the future is still the conventional wisdom in intellectual circles here. They would be bemused, to say the least, at *a Dutch relapse into religiosity. *But as the authors of a recently published study called De Toekomst van God (The Future of God) point out, organized prayer in the workplace is just one among several pieces of evidence suggesting that Holland is on the threshold of a new era--one we might call the age of "post-secularization." God is back in Europe's most notoriously liberal country.The decline of liberal Protestantism has been matched by that of liberal Catholicism.among the under-20s it is rising again, and by a significant margin. A CBS survey noted that between 2003 and 2004, church attendance among under-20s rose seemingly inexplicably, from 9 percent to 14 percent.    Holland's Post-Secular Future | The Weekly Standard


4.	The secularization thesis: Societies secularize when the cosmopolitan confrontations of city living exposed the relativity of the myths and traditions men once thought were unquestionable.
Harvey Cox, The Secular City, p. 1

a.	While it might seem that the above reflects the decline of religion....actually, a major factor in the reversal of this thesis can be traced to the fall of *totalitarian regimes with their state-enforced atheism.*

b.	And, it has been shown that during the rapid urbanization of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both Protestants and Catholics actually predominated in cities more than in rural areas. Perhaps Mr. Clark is missing the point.
See Finke and Stark, The Churching of America: 1776-1990,p. 203-207




5. Resurgence on secular college campuses?  
Harvard students are increasingly "churchgoing, Bible-studying, and believing," says Jay Harris, the dean who administers the General Education program. "We have a very strong evangelical community.  
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/10/harvard-s-crisis-of-faith.html



Why the fear of debate?

Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?



Could be?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2013)

Physicist Victor Stengler writes:
 &#8220;Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth  is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.&#8221; 

The more science teaches us about the natural world, *the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. *

As science writer Tom Bethell notes, *&#8220;an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.&#8221; *Thus, we can add this &#8216;atheism-article-of-faith&#8217; to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism. 
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter one.


a. So, it seems that in our time, *much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought*, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. 

And, like any militant church, *science places a familiar demand before all others: &#8220;Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&#8221;* Ibid.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 20, 2013)

Although it can be fun to poke holes into "Evolution," most of the hole pokers have about as much scientific credentials as a C-average high school grad (which most of them are).  But to suppose that there is any other explanation for the existence of the current varieties of species in the world is - I hate to use the word - stupid.

Most compelling for me are the analyses of plants and animals in areas of the world that became geologically isolated at various times (Madagascar, Australia, etc.).  The unique species in these areas, and the traceability of those species is ONLY explainable through evolution.  For those who (incredibly) believe that all species were created at the time of creation, this is a complete mystery and not explainable.

Religious people who are rational (yes, there are some of us) have had to conclude that large portions of Genesis are allegorical and not factual, and that the scribes and prophets were reporting on the world as they understood it, and not the world as it exists from a scientific standpoint.

"Creation-ism" is not a science, and has no place in any credible academic institution. "Intelligent design" is merely an attempt to shade misunderstandings of Evolution so that they appear to be "the Hand of God."  Fine for Church or dinner conversation, but not really appropriate for a high school "science" class.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

DGS49 said:


> Although it can be fun to poke holes into "Evolution," most of the hole pokers have about as much scientific credentials as a C-average high school grad (which most of them are).  But to suppose that there is any other explanation for the existence of the current varieties of species in the world is - I hate to use the word - stupid.
> 
> Most compelling for me are the analyses of plants and animals in areas of the world that became geologically isolated at various times (Madagascar, Australia, etc.).  The unique species in these areas, and the traceability of those species is ONLY explainable through evolution.  For those who (incredibly) believe that all species were created at the time of creation, this is a complete mystery and not explainable.
> 
> ...





1. " But to suppose that there is any other explanation for the existence of the current varieties of species in the world is - I hate to use the word - stupid."

Well....simply admit that you accept the theory of evolution on faith.
Then you won't appear stupid.

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.




2. This was in the OP....you might want to read it more carefully:

  Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny.* But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, theres no observational evidence for that. *Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germanys Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repos...aebsch2006.pdf

Based on the above, you  might wish to be more careful with the use of the word 'stupid."
It has a way of boomaranging.....





3. ".... the scribes and prophets were reporting on the world as they understood it, and not the world as it exists from a scientific standpoint."

Interesting that you say that. Darwin's theory is not science either.
It is conjecture, a philosophical discussion. That's the correct way to refer to ideas sans evidence.

Based on that, why object to a full-blown debate such as the OP points out that many have requested?


----------



## PredFan (Nov 20, 2013)

It is easy to poke holes in evolution. We do not know all there is to know about it yet.

What is far far easier to do than that, is to poke holes in Creationism.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It is easy to poke holes in evolution. We do not know all there is to know about it yet.
> 
> What is far far easier to do than that, is to poke holes in Creationism.




If it is 'easy to poke holes in evolution,' why, then, would you accept it as any more than an interesting discussion topic?


I'm going to suggest that you are unaware of the importance of Darwin's theory to secularism, to Leftism.

Do you realize the connection?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 20, 2013)

PC, if you are saying that evolution should be open to scientific investigation, of course you are correct.  That should be done in the science classroom.

Creationism and ID are not scientific, thus they cannot be part of the debate in the science classroom.  That discussion can be done in the liberal arts classroom.

You also have the opportunity in our country to private school or home school your children.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> PC, if you are saying that evolution should be open to scientific investigation, of course you are correct.  That should be done in the science classroom.
> 
> Creationism and ID are not scientific, thus they cannot be part of the debate in the science classroom.  That discussion can be done in the liberal arts classroom.
> 
> You also have the opportunity in our country to private school or home school your children.





1. "Creationism and ID are not scientific, thus they cannot be part of the debate in the science classroom."

As Darwin's theory of one species changing into another is without evidence for over one hundred years,  it is not 'scientific,' either.


Therefore, it should be relegated to where ever you decide any other theory based on faith should be.



2. What's is required is a clear understanding of what is science, and what is conjecture and/or consensus.

Here's what science was:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of *science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.." *
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been taught that, haven't you?



a. Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that *there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science. *
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)


b.  This echoes David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding :
If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any *abstract reasoning* concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any *experimental reasoning *concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.



Did you get that? "...nothing but sophistry and illusion.
That's Darwin's theory, isn't it.

3. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.

Which is it?


And why is Darwin's theory essential to the Left?


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 20, 2013)

Hey, PC.

Instead of taking on your points one by one, I will post here places where one can find more information on the subject because I can see from your posts that you don't fully grasp the theory nor the facts about evolution.

From the Smithsonian Institute regarding human evolution:
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

From UC Berkely, the evidence for evolution:
What is the evidence for evolution?

A quick guide to some of the evidence for evolution:
Five Proofs of Evolution | Evolution FAQ

29 evidences for macroevolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Some videos showing the more complex evidences for evolution:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&desktop_uri=/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

There is SO much more on this subject that can easily be found by simply doing a google search.

For you to learn more about the theory and the science behind it is incumbent upon you to do so.  Much of what you think about evolution is actually misconceptions, mischaracterizations, caricatures, and oversimplifications.  I personally swear to you that on this subject you are either misinformed or uninformed and that by learning more about it the world will become a far more complex place than you currently think it is.  I can tell you are an intelligent person and it isn't hard for me to believe that you would be interested in this subject if you'll only give it a real, authentic, genuine chance with an open mind.

I would love to have a discussion if you still have questions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Hey, PC.
> 
> Instead of taking on your points one by one, I will post here places where one can find more information on the subject because I can see from your posts that you don't fully grasp the theory nor the facts about evolution.
> 
> ...








How about you prove how intimately you understand same by giving a few examples of one species being documented as changing into another.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 20, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is easy to poke holes in evolution. We do not know all there is to know about it yet.
> ...



I accept evolution because it best explains what I know to be true.

The only reason that it is important to lefties is because it issues if fundamentalists so much. That is the only connection. That doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 20, 2013)

Creationists cannot defend creationism, therefor they can only attack evolution. Ironically, all the things that they criticize about evolution goes double for creation.

There isn't one gram of proof of anything that creationism teaches.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

PredFan said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...





No prob.

You're free to 'accept' what ever you wish.

Just as long as you realize that proof of same is lacking.





"The only reason that it is important to lefties is because it issues if fundamentalists so much. That is the only connection."

Not so.


There is a reason why Darwin is essential to Leftists...to secularists.
In fact your statement is the very reverse of the truth.

This may help:

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise, "Ends and Means," says the following...

 "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system *and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness. *

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author *Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."*
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?



Once you realize, as Darwin did, that the proof of his theory is missing....an intelligent person might ask why so many are wedded to the idea.


"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great." 
 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164


It's 150 years later....
....and still no proof.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Creationists cannot defend creationism, therefor they can only attack evolution. Ironically, all the things that they criticize about evolution goes double for creation.
> 
> There isn't one gram of proof of anything that creationism teaches.




Yeah....I'll accept that.

The essential question of the OP is why believers in Darwin are so afraid to have the public debate.

From your post....I'd think that they'd be only too happy to have the debate....



But note this:

The science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, *"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."* This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. 

Dr. Scott is *Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE),* ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. 
Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

 Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of* one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.*
 Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."



Strange, huh?


----------



## PredFan (Nov 20, 2013)

It might be true for Aldous Huxley but for the other 99.999% of the lefties running around today, they only care that it upsets fundamentalist Christians.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, PC.
> ...



There is far more evidence of that than there is of Creationism.  Please site a few examples of a species being created from scratch by a deity.   

Since a deity is an integral part of creationism or ID, how about providing actual scientific evidence of the existence of a deity.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It might be true for Aldous Huxley but for the other 99.999% of the lefties running around today, they only care that it upsets fundamentalist Christians.



I may post a more extensive explanation.

I don't guarantee that you'll get it.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

WinterBorn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...





Why is that incumbent on creationists?

They don't make the same claims as the pseudo-science evolutionists.


You seem to be clueless as to what is necessary to be a believer in the deity.....faith is all that is necessary for a believer.

Now, if Darwinian evolution is science.....it requires more than faith.
Unfortunately....it has naught but faith supporting same.

There is no evidence of one species changing into another.

Get it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 20, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Both creationism and ID are predicated on the existence of a deity.  Without any actual scientific evidence of such a deity, they both fold.

The central idea in evolution is mutation, and that has been well documented.  

I understand that faith is all that is necessary for a believer.  But we are not talking about being a believer.  We are discussing what is taught in a science class in a public school.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2013)

WinterBorn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...





You're trying to change the subject?

So....that means I win?



The discussion is not about whether or not there is a deity....

...unless you posted in the wrong thread.

The issue is whether or not Darwinian evolution is science...and, since most folks- or even many folks-  don't believe it is, whether it should be included in discussion of other explanations for the multiplicity of life.


Note....I put it in education, not religion.


So....ya' throwin' in the towel?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 20, 2013)

Religious creation myths are just stories that were made up by relatively primitive people who did not possess the knowledge to craft any better explanations.

Setting aside the religious types who have rejected science because it discomforts them,

I think most people who are skeptical about evolution, especially the evolving of one species to another, may not be appreciating the length of time it has taken life to get from there to here.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 20, 2013)

WinterBorn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Intelligent design is a 'theory' whose real purpose is just an attempt to prove the existence of God in a reverse sort of way by attempting to prove that life could not exist as it does unless it were the product of a Creator,

therefore, since life does exist,

then a Creator must exist.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 20, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> There is no evidence of one species changing into another.
> 
> Get it?



Let me google that for you: Observed Speciation

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 20, 2013)

PredFan said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Study evolution.

Worship creationism. 

Evolution belongs in institutions of higher education, creationism and other fantasies belong in churches. 

Works for me.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 20, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



When you start by saying evidence means nothing and you will only believe fantasies, there really isn't anything more to say. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't care what set of fantasies you choose to accept as fact. You're welcome to them. But you have a long standing habit of posting real nonsense and calling it fact.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 20, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Religious creation myths are just stories that were made up by relatively primitive people who did not possess the knowledge to craft any better explanations.
> 
> Setting aside the religious types who have rejected science because it discomforts them,
> 
> I think most people who are skeptical about evolution, especially the evolving of one species to another, may not be appreciating the length of time it has taken life to get from there to here.



I used to believe that once people got a little education under their belt, they just naturally stopped believing the old folk tales.


----------



## MsAnthrope (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



If you want creationism taught in science class then it is incumbent on creationists to provide such evidence. To at least support the theory...


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2013)

this is a big question that is almost always framed incorrectly.

evolution and survival of the fittest is unquestionably true in short time frames and powered by genetic mutations and local conditions. eg agriculture has caused a lot of changes in humans over the last 5-10 thousand years. longer time frames and development of different species is a much fuzzier and less understood mechanism but still a very reasonable hypothesis.

the problem is that people confuse a natural tool, evolution, with the origin of life. evolution only works on pre-existing life forms, it does not cause them to come into existence.

the actual origin of the spark of life is unknowable at this time. I am all for teaching evolution in school, just dont pretend it has anything to do with the origin of life.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> this is a big question that is almost always framed incorrectly.
> 
> evolution and survival of the fittest is unquestionably true in short time frames and powered by genetic mutations and local conditions. eg agriculture has caused a lot of changes in humans over the last 5-10 thousand years. longer time frames and development of different species is a much fuzzier and less understood mechanism but still a very reasonable hypothesis.
> 
> ...








Actually, I am reserving origin of life for some future post....



Now, as for mutations....

 I must point out that mutations only function to alter the adaptability of a particular extant species to its environment.

They don not cause large alterations, e.g.. producing new species.


1. Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive. 
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that* clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits *in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....  all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, areonly additional evidence of the fixity of species. '" 
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

a."Darwins theory of the development of living systems is *based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. *Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By* macro-mutation *I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, *most are lethal. *" Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | | Richard C. Francis


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this is a big question that is almost always framed incorrectly.
> ...



you have a strong point but...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. survival of the fittest is one tool in nature's toolbox, mutations another. just because we have not found the mechanism of speciation that does not mean it isnt there. 

again, the problems of explaining evolution are trivial compared to explaining the first spark of life.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this is a big question that is almost always framed incorrectly.
> ...



Why don't you give us a plausible scenario as to how species appeared in the first place?

1.  If species didn't evolve, then they must have been placed on earth, as the species they are, where none existed before.

2.  For a species to have been 'created', its original members of that species cannot have had parents.  Individuals would have to have appeared suddenly on earth, 

much like a toy animals being placed into a farmyard in a child's farm set.

Do you honestly believe that happened?  When did it happen?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence of one species changing into another.
> ...



She's had the proof of speciation explained to her repeatedly.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






I would say that your statement "....just because we have not found the mechanism of speciation that does not mean it isnt there." applies, as well to several other theories mentioned in the thread.


Next week I may construct an OP on the real import of Darwinism.....and it has nothing to do with science.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Speciation has been proven to you; your denial is irrelevant and has no impact on that proof.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence of one species changing into another.
> ...





1. Are you familiar with Francis Crick's work with DNA? Did you know that Crick observed that life appears suddenly and with complexity in the fossil record, and
confirmed* the absence of any fossil evidence for transitional forms of life?*


2. Then there are two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, who proposed some weird theory about life on earth coming from outer space....(Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism").

Now, the theory may be strange.....but it is based on the following:
Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains* the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.* Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that *intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record*. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. p.111



In any case.....all three recognized scientists state that there are no transitional fossils in evidence.


So....how to explain the nonsense in your post?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Religious creation myths are just stories that were made up by relatively primitive people who did not possess the knowledge to craft any better explanations.
> ...



What the Creationists won't accept, what they can't accept, is that science develops theories, and when better theories come along,

they replace or revise the old theory with all or part of the better theory.

The theory of Evolution is subject to revision or improvement, but since the theory of Evolution replaced the creation theories/myths, 

because it was the better theory, the much better theory, the very very very very much better theory,

Creationism - at least that form of creationism that denies any role of evolution - is now scientific history, not scientific theory.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You mean like Tiktaalik? Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, neatly fitting between fish and land dwelling animal. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a strange sort of coincidence that the universe seems to love, Tiktaalik was being described by the scientists at the same time as the Kitzmiller trial. 

There's a whole page of transitional fossils just waiting fro you to read. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...




There is no record of one species becoming another in the fossil record.

That is the case.


Now, I understand how important it is to you to maintain your belief in Darwin....but....arguendo, if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

How to explain it?


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 21, 2013)

You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1. 

But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:


> if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....
> 
> ....to what would you attribute same?



You don't want to see the proof because it is in conflict with your worldview, so therefore no proof can be found. Nothing will ever be good enough for you and even if it meets your criteria, you'll just reform the question to exclude the evidence in front of you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.
> 
> But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:
> 
> ...





 "no transitional fossils" means a record from one species to another.

The record of transition from one species to another....the claim of Darwinian evolution...does not exist.

As my previous post giving the words of three recognized scientists, shows.


My question remains....if you could be convinced that no such pathway exists, would you be open to a new view, or "would it be in conflict with your worldview"?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.
> ...



You've apparently never seen the timeline of the evolutionary development of the horse.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.
> 
> But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:
> 
> ...



I explained this to her the other day with the simplest of examples.  The coyote and the domestic dog are separate species but they can interbreed.  The result, known as a coydog, is neither wolf nor domestic dog, as far as species is concerned.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.
> ...



Actually there are plenty of transitional fossils, PC!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...









Really?

Well, then, *why do noted evolutionists say just the opposite?*

1. ...like Ernst Mayr, who admitted: "Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand,* there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.* This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution&#8221; 


Saltatory, meaning the opposite of what Darwin wrote.

Mayr....perhaps the most famous of evolutionary biologists....



2. Or Stephen Gould....&#8220;All paleontologists know that* the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. *Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.&#8221; (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda&#8217;s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


3. Or University of Oklahoma paleontologist Dave Kitts?
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of &#8220;seeing&#8221; evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of &#8220;gaps&#8221; in the fossil record.* Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them&#8230;*. (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)




And many other real evoluitonists....who propound the theory of evolution, not always Darwin's version (Gould didn't) but admit truth....*the record does not support Darwinian evolution.*

So....do you still want to champion it?


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 21, 2013)

You're referring to books and papers decades old, as if nothing new has been found between then and now. If that's the standard, why have science at all? 

You claim to go to Columbia. Walk over to the biology department and ask any of the professors if there have been any advances or new findings in the 30+ years since Gould et al wrote what they did (assuming they wrote it in the first place and the context is exactly what you purport it to be).


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The fossil record itself is hardly complete. The transitional fossil record suffers from the same problem. However there are more than sufficient transitional fossils to support the concept to evolution. Add to that the DNA evidence that can manipulate a chicken so that it has teeth and a tail similar to those of it's dinosaur ancestors and there is no doubt whatsoever that species evolve. 

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | QUEST



> After 65 million years you might think all traces of dino-DNA would be lost in birds. Surprisingly, youd be wrong. It looks like there is still some T-rex lurking in a chickens DNA.
> 
> In the last decade, scientists have been able to make chickens look a bit more dinosaur-like by changing how the chickens use the genes they already have. For example, they have been able to make a chickens tail look a bit more like a dinosaurs.
> 
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> You're referring to books and papers decades old, as if nothing new has been found between then and now. If that's the standard, why have science at all?
> 
> You claim to go to Columbia. Walk over to the biology department and ask any of the professors if there have been any advances or new findings in the 30+ years since Gould et al wrote what they did (assuming they wrote it in the first place and the context is exactly what you purport it to be).






Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds *gaps in just about every phyletic series.* (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

*What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, *and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types. (Carroll, Robert L., Towards a new evolutionary synthesis, in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)



Case closed?




You are in error, but not in doubt.

An unbeatable combination.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




"Now they *probably* wont be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. *There are bound to *have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that well need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like."


You can't be serious. This is written for and by grade-schoolers.

Did you notice phrases such as "we'll probably...."


Why do you think phrases such as that are used?
I would have thought you were more astute.


The fact is that there is no fossil record showing one species becoming another.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception.* The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." *Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Evolution doesn't say that one species evolves into another.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 21, 2013)

Who created God, or did the supreme being evolve from another state of existence?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I was being considerate to the audience! 


> Did you notice phrases such as "we'll probably...."
> 
> 
> Why do you think phrases such as that are used?
> ...



That statement is almost correct, but to be accurate it should read as follows;



> The fact is that there is no *COMPLETE* fossil record showing one species becoming another.



But we don't need a *complete* fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

PredFan said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...





Of course it does.
You don't have a clear understanding of Darwin's theory.


But, I can help.


1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
 a.* universal common ancestry of all living things,* all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

 b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as *new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, *they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





"But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher."

Excellent!!!



Another way to say 'we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction' is to say you accept it on faith.
And that is my point exactly.


One can certainly accept it on faith, i.e., sans evidence.

You're my first convert.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Physical evidence exists in both the fossil record and DNA. Ergo no "faith" is required to make a logical and reasoned deduction based upon the physical evidence that does exist. If you prefer you can call it a circumstantial case for evolution based upon the preponderance of physical evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





You've been fooled.

I understand how difficult it is for those of you haven't done the research into the matter to come to grips with the idea that there are reasons why Darwin's theory is pushed so heavily.....yet lacks the evidence necessary.


"But the curious thing is that* there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; *at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] 
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



Eventually I will construct and OP explaining why the idea of Darwin's theory has been advanced by secularists....and why it is so important that you believe it to be true.

Until then, you can mull over why you are willing to accept as true an unproven idea....

"...there is a consistency about *the fossil gaps:* the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there;..."


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 21, 2013)

I would prefer a thread on how God was created.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



What will you do when a fossil is found "between major groups of animals", PC?

Look for another "loophole" to jump through?

In essence what is the purpose of this exercise in futility?

What are you trying to "prove" here? That the arbitrary groupings that we assign to fossils was the work of your "creator"? If that were true then why did your "creator" not specify all of these "groupings" in your religious texts? Why did he leave all of these transitional fossils lying around? Why did he bother with DNA that turns scales into corneas?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> I would prefer a thread on how God was created.



Good to see you back, Drop-Draws.....


...now stop your nonsense.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





What 'loophole'?

I just state facts.


Now...I thought we agreed.

You can continue to support Darwin's theory, with the stipulation that the fossil record doesn't support it.


No prob.


After a while, I'll explain why believe in same is so important to so many folks....then you can agree or not.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 21, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





What a stupid, low-life, self-aggrandizing comment.


I have no ulterior motive.....I've stated over and over that I merely reveal the lack of evidence for Darwin's theory.....and, doing so, I must make you feel.....what's the word? Oh....Stupid.


So you wish to pretend things about me to hide your embarrassment?


But....it is such a juvenile strategy that I can't even manage to work up some low-grade loathing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

DGS49 said:


> Although it can be fun to poke holes into "Evolution," most of the hole pokers have about as much scientific credentials as a C-average high school grad (which most of them are).  But to suppose that there is any other explanation for the existence of the current varieties of species in the world is - I hate to use the word - stupid.
> 
> Most compelling for me are the analyses of plants and animals in areas of the world that became geologically isolated at various times (Madagascar, Australia, etc.).  The unique species in these areas, and the traceability of those species is ONLY explainable through evolution.  For those who (incredibly) believe that all species were created at the time of creation, this is a complete mystery and not explainable.
> 
> ...



How did the first cells "evolve"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

My son is working at an IPSC Lab and they're having trouble figuring out why some altered cells will revert back to their original configuration even after their DNA has been altered; given our current understanding, there's no way for this to possibly happen -- but it does.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My son is working at an IPSC Lab and they're having trouble figuring out why some altered cells will revert back to their original configuration even after their DNA has been altered; given our current understanding, there's no way for this to possibly happen -- but it does.






That is not only fascinating, but would seem to indicate that species are fixed.

It would be stake through the heart of Darwinism.....and argue against natural selection.

If you could point me toward some sites that cover same it would be greatly appreciated.


Reminded me of this:
"Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive. "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....  all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are*only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '" *
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

How did awareness "evolve" from inorganic molecules


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > My son is working at an IPSC Lab and they're having trouble figuring out why some altered cells will revert back to their original configuration even after their DNA has been altered; given our current understanding, there's no way for this to possibly happen -- but it does.
> ...



They're fixed and they were designed to repair themselves

I'm on smartphone and don't know how to link.... Google iPSC cell reversion


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

The only evolution I'm aware of is how Rdean, JoeB and Bucs evolved from Republicans into Marxists


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Gotta admit you always know how to make me chuckle, PC! 

Evolution is factual and observable. The Peppered Moth over the last 200 years shows a classic case of a changing environment resulting in a species adaptation.

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So no amount of out-of-context links are going to alter the reality of evolution.

Given that you are so intent upon trying to "prove" this falsehood of yours and that you accuse others of having "faith" where none is needed it is readily apparent that you have some ulterior motive and/or agenda. I am curious as to what that might be. You don't need to be afraid that I will ridicule your beliefs since I am a staunch supporter of the freedom to believe, or not believe, as one so desires. So why not just come clean and let's discuss what is really bothering you to the point that you engage in these silly exercises in futility.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I would prefer a thread on how God was created.
> ...



He's right.

If you argue that complex living beings cannot exist without having been created by 'intelligent design', then God,

reputedly a very complex, living being, cannot exist without having been created by 'intelligent design'.

Once you concede that God is not the product of a Creator, you have conceded that life does not need a Creator to begin.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about this with someone who demands at the outset that we concede there is no evidence to support Darwin's theory.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My son is working at an IPSC Lab and they're having trouble figuring out why some altered cells will revert back to their original configuration even after their DNA has been altered; given our current understanding, there's no way for this to possibly happen -- but it does.



Obviously there is something else that needs to be learned. However it is only logical that cells would have a self repairing facility and unless it is disabled it will continue to function. The immune systems of short lived creatures is less developed than those that live longer. However if the natural predators of a short lived creature are removed from the environment thus allowing these creatures to live longer their immune systems will adapt to exploit longer life spans. Our current understanding is limited but since we can observe this happening it is obvious that it works and we just need to try harder to figure out how it actually works.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 22, 2013)

Still awaiting an answer to my question, if species didn't evolve over time,

how did they get here?

When, for example did the first chicken appear?  One day there were no chickens, the next there were?

Did the first chicken magically appear on earth as an adult?  Or did a chicken egg magically appear and hatch by itself?

Baby robins for example need parents' care to survive, so robins couldn't have first appeared, suddenly, as babies.  According to PC and others here, suddenly, one day, out of thin air, there were robins were none had existed before.

How is that more plausible than the theory of Evolution?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Still awaiting an answer to my question, if species didn't evolve over time,
> 
> how did they get here?
> 
> ...



Full grown male and female robins with mating instincts and the knowledge of what kind of food was good vs poisonous. Perhaps they were even named Bachmann and Robin.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





PLeeeezzzzee...

With this post you have verified that you are clueless about evolution...and, frankly, you're beginning to sound like a moron.


Nobody doubts that adaptation occurs, in the narrow sense that *certain changes happen naturally.* 

The uninfomed claim that evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. 

Now try to comprehend this:* Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, *but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.


Get it? That's what grade school teacher use an example of evolution....but isn't.


Don't thank me.....I never object to teaching folks....
If you have the ability to learn....right now, you must feel like an idiot.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...






"So no amount of out-of-context links are going to alter the reality of evolution."

Sadly, I find that when folks like you have not defense, no way to counter the facts....they resort to nonsense bordering on lies, such as "out of context."


Would you mind showing how any are out of context?

Begin here: all of the quotes are accurate.....aren't they.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > My son is working at an IPSC Lab and they're having trouble figuring out why some altered cells will revert back to their original configuration even after their DNA has been altered; given our current understanding, there's no way for this to possibly happen -- but it does.
> ...



You're confusing a number of items. The iPSC lab alters the DNA, they change skin cells into stem cells by altering the DNA.

There's something besides the DNA that is a fail-safe to KEEP THE CELLS FROM MUTATING

Wrestle with that for a minute


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Still awaiting an answer to my question, if species didn't evolve over time,
> 
> how did they get here?
> 
> ...



Well considering that physicists have concrete evidence that all the stuff around us that we think is real is less than a small fraction of what's sharing the space with us I think it's fairly easy to assume there's something else at work. 

We're like tropical fish in a tank and the glass reflects the waterworld back to us and we've convinced ourselves our tank is the Universe


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Congratulations, PC!

You just admitted that evolution via natural selection is scientific fact.

Baby steps but still a step in the right direction. Where do you want to do next? How about how characteristics change over time? Say a certain bone is slightly deformed but it creates the ability of a small creature to hop out of danger? So with this new ability it doesn't fall victim to a predator but instead is able to procreate and pass it's deformity on to it's descendants. Thus an entire new species of hoping creatures evolves. 

This isn't all that difficult to understand if you just apply yourself to learning about how it works.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The quotes might be accurate but the context in which you are using them is wrong. That was established when I took one of your quotes and by adding the single word "complete" I was able to point out how you were misunderstanding the intent. Evolution is factual and your constant failed attempts to disprove it are going nowhere.

It would be much more productive for you to just come right out with your hidden agenda and make a clean breast of it. We really don't mind that you believe in a mythical creator. I will defend your right to believe as you wish with my life if needs be. But it just seems so silly to continue to play these little games where you try and pretend something that is already established fact is not proven.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



But if you don't know what it is how can you claim for a fact that isn't the DNA itself? Without exculpatory evidence that the DNA is not involved you cannot rule it out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Right. And you think random atoms banging together developed a fail-safe system like that?

Seriously?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Still awaiting an answer to my question, if species didn't evolve over time,
> ...



Reasonable analogy. From what we know to date it appears as though the universe is full of dark energy. If the newly formed stars over the past 13.7 billion years are heating up the dark energy that could explain the expansion of the universe. 

There is also the problem with the light horizon. Effectively we cannot see anything that is beyond that horizon so it possible that there is an infinite universe where big bangs occur on a cyclical basis and we are just one tiny occurrence amongst billions that have happened before, are currently happening and will continue into an infinite future.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Chemical bonds form because of the properties of matter. The simple experiment of making a supersaturated solution of copper sulphate demonstrates how a changing environment alters the form and how bonds can occur between copper and iron molecules. So put all of the chemicals into a massive ocean sized test tube and apply heat and electricity and yes, over billions of years you will eventually observe "random atoms banging together" coming up with some interesting combinations.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



How did awareness develop from atoms?

I personally like the Mexican Shaman Don Juan's explanation of human awareness: we're little probes sent out by a Self Aware Universe


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



 

That question is above my pay grade but the origins seem simple enough. Take a sunflower's ability to track the sun as it moves during the day. Does the sunflower have an awareness of the sun or are there simply collections of atoms in cells that are growing at different times so that it appears to follow the sun? Obviously there is an evolutionary advantage to the plant for these cells to react as they do but there is no "awareness" on the level equivalent to ourselves. So if the atoms that compromise a sunflower can develop a primitive "awareness" that gives the sunflower an evolutionary edge then it stands to reason that atoms that can react to their environment will stand a better chance of reproducing than those that don't.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Still awaiting an answer to my question, if species didn't evolve over time,
> ...



Nothing you said had anything to do with what I asked.

Is it plausible to believe that the many species past and present suddenly appeared, fully formed, out of nowhere?

That is the Creation theory, at least the one that rejects Evolution.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You totally reject Evolution, but you offer no plausible alternative.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 22, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> You totally reject Evolution, but you offer no plausible alternative.



Nonsense. Godditit. 

You know, if nothing else this whole exercise of trying to discuss evolution with people who just flat out refuse to accept it has given me a greater appreciation for the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Lamaitre, and Wegener went through trying to explain how the world functioned to people who just don't want to hear it.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 22, 2013)

WinterBorn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


Well, we all know if it's in the Bible it has to be true.  No need to read any other book.  That will just confuse you with scientific facts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



PC, you are so damned silly. Repeatedly paleontologists have found 'transistional' fossils in various lines of life forms. And each time, it is pointed out that there are still elements missing from one or the other. You see, the chances of finding the a fossil line that includes every little change through time is zero. Only a minute number of life forms are fossilized. 

And now we have genetics that has cinched the relationships among the various life forms. So what you are contesting is the fossil record, the very genetics within your own cells, and observations of life scientists the world over.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



*When one considers the atmosphere, chemicals in the early ocean, incoming interplanetary debris, and the makeup and actions of the crust at that time, you can readily see the chemical soup and energy environment that made abiogenisis possible. Here is just one of the interesting studies on the role of minerals in this.*

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life&#8217;s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic &#8220;soup&#8221; to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2013)

The Chirality of Life: From Phase Transitions to Astrobiology | Sara Imari Walker - Academia.edu

The Chirality Of Life: From Phase Transitions To Astrobiology
Marcelo Gleiser
&#8727;
and Sara Imari Walker
&#8224;
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755, USA
The search for life elsewhere in the universe is a pivotal question in modern science. However,to address whether life is common in the universe we must &#64257;rst understand the likelihood of abio-genesis by studying the origin of life on Earth. A key missing piece is the origin of biomolecularhomochirality: permeating almost every life-form on Earth is the presence of exclusively levorotaryamino acids and dextrorotary sugars. In this work we discuss recent results suggesting that life&#8217;shomochirality resulted from sequential chiral symmetry breaking triggered by environmental eventsin a mechanism referred to as punctuated chirality. Applying these arguments to other potentiallylife-bearing platforms has signi&#64257;cant implications for the search for extraterrestrial life: we predictthat a statistically representative sampling of extraterrestrial stereochemistry will be racemic onaverage.
I. INTRODUCTION
During the past few decades the search for life elsewhere in the universe has risen to the forefront of scienti&#64257;cquestioning. This is motivated by recent discoveries of exoplanets, including the discoveries of super-Earths[1],opening up the possibility of a potentially large number of habitable planetary platforms beyond Earth. In addition,carbon isotopic evidence indicating that life existed on Earth at least as early as 3
.
5 billion years ago (Bya)[2,3], andthe discoveries of extremophilic life forms on Earth[4], suggest that life can survive and even thrive under harsherconditions than previously imagined. In light of such evidence, it is reasonable to conjecture that life may be morecommon in the universe than anticipated, even if not abundant as some would posit [5]. When attempting to answerthe question of how widespread life is, it is pertinent to examine the only example of abiogenesis known to date: theorigin of life on Earth.One of the most distinctive features of life - the existence of a speci&#64257;c and seemingly universal chiral signature - alsopresents one of the longest standing mysteries in studies of abiogenesis. It is well&#8211;known that chiral selectivity playsa key role in the biochemistry of living systems: nearly all life on Earth contains exclusively dextrorotary sugars andlevorotary amino acids. Quite possibly, the development of homochirality was a critical step in the emergence of life.Although there are numerous models for the onset of homochirality presented in the literature, none is conclusive:the details of chirobiogenesis remain unknown.As we will discuss in this paper, the environment of early Earth, or other prebiotic environments, must have playeda crucial role in chirobiogenesis. Environmental e&#64256;ects will be shown to destroy any memory of a prior chiral bias,whatever its origin. Life&#8217;s chirality is interwoven with early-Earth&#8217;s environmental history; speci&#64257;cally, with how theenvironment in&#64258;uenced the prebiotic soup that led to &#64257;rst life


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And we've seen how many of these geochemical elements form amino acids? proteins? cells?

None

Not once

Not ever


----------



## Flopper (Nov 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> The Chirality of Life: From Phase Transitions to Astrobiology | Sara Imari Walker - Academia.edu
> 
> The Chirality Of Life: From Phase Transitions To Astrobiology
> Marcelo Gleiser
> ...


I think the question of the existence of extraterritorial life is not a question of if but a question of when.  Looking at the age of the universe, what is the probability that life exist at this moment in time anywhere within the known universe?  If you consider the probability of that life being intelligent, the probability goes down dramatically.  Unfortunately we have no way of quantifying since we don't know the bounds of the universe nor the number of planets that could actually support life.   I would love to see how religious leaders of the time reconcile extraterritorial intelligent life with the biblical account of creation.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...





Really?



So.....are these guy lying?


1. "About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there* is no evidence of intermediate forms. *The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because *every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record. *
(Bergman, Jerry, The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish, CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. )

2. * Absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution.* This is one count in the creationists charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere (Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).

3. Given the fact of evolution, *one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.* (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)




Yet, you acolytes of Leftist secular belief deny what real experts clearly admit.


Why is that?


What is the explanation for your fear of the truth, Rocks?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > You totally reject Evolution, but you offer no plausible alternative.
> ...




"... trying to discuss evolution with people who just flat out refuse to accept it..."
You're fibbing.


Check out post #95



Actually....you are the one who refuses to accept the facts, e.g., post #95


Why?

I guess that the indoctrination you've been exposed to just sticks, huh?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 24, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



There is no plausible alternative to the theory of Evolution in post 95.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 24, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


I think many people hold two conflicting beliefs. They believe living organisms originating from specific acts of divine creation in accordance with the biblical account and also believe living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms as do over 90% of the scientists.

For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting beliefs.  Creationism is an attempt to resolve the dilemma by collecting scientific evidence that supports the biblical account while ignoring  the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution. 

This is completely illogical but most humans aren't very logical.  Their lives are ruled by love, joy, hate, fear, and anger.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 24, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Has anyone ever bothered to explain to PoliticalSpice that soft tissue doesn't fossilize? Therefore it is impossible to have a complete fossil record of transition from species to species. But instead she acts as if this is some kind of "proof" of her belief in "creationism".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





"....For a person of faith in both religion and science, it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance,..."


"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 25, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And what percent of that 51% would you estimate have rejected the theory of evolution?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 25, 2013)

Flopper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Don't forget that the creation myth in the Bible is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of creation myths that have been part of the teachings of the many many religions, past and present.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Evolution is the myth


----------



## Flopper (Nov 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


It seems every religion makes some attempt to explain creation.  In ancient times, creation and many other issues had to be explained in terms people could understand, a supernatural being who commanded it.  The purpose of the Bible was to teach us how to act toward our fellowman and God. Whether the heavens and earth were created in 7 days or 7 billion years is irrelevant to its purpose.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 26, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Trolling is easy.  Providing a plausible alternative to evolution to explain life on earth as we know it isn't.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...








You are as ignorant as you are disreputable.

There are dozens of alternative explanations.....just as proven as Darwinian theory.


How about t*he view of scientist Francis Crick, of DNA fame*.....

*Directed Panspermia -* postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to *another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet;* that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature' , p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; *transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"* p.144



OK....let's see you subscribe to that one.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 26, 2013)

Flopper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...






"It seems every religion makes some attempt to explain creation. "

That includes the religion of 'Darwinian evolution," among other inanities of 'science.'



An example?

1.	Dawkins, among others, has embraced the multiverse, [the Landscape] idea, that there could be *an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.* 

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to *infinitely many universes* crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental  physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*


2.	Now, get this: 
Dawkins actually writes, The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of *statistical improbability.*

From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 26, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



We haven't been running an experiment for a couple of billion years either.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 26, 2013)

Dear PC: The best way not to "dumb down" the education for the masses is to QUIT pigeonholing every issue as Either/Or.

Why not teach that science and secular systems serve as a necessary check and complement to faith based traditions that serve as a stabilizing foundation. Why demonize or discredit one for the other. As is they dont both serve equally important roles in society.

As for evolution and creation, there are ways to demonstrate both.
Why not teach the different contexts where these apply so our future generations dont waste resources arguing over these issues that each have their place.

These arguments get old going nowhere because there is no need for conflict to begin with.
May we get past this stage soon, so the next generation that inherits the internet does not have all this garbage still mucking it up, but can use it to solve real problems in real life!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 27, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There's more evidence for directed panspermia than there is for Darwinism?  lol, good one.

First of all that makes no case against evolution;  if the first life here was only some space alien microorganisms, then it would have been they who evolved into more complex life.

Secondly, Francis Crick:

*Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

**In his book Of Molecules and Men, Crick expressed his views on the relationship between science and religion. After suggesting that it would become possible for people to wonder if a computer might be programmed so as to have a soul, he wondered: at what point during biological evolution did the first organism have a soul? At what moment does a baby get a soul? Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is just that, an imagined idea. 

For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over millions of years. Crick felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction. 

Crick felt that a new scientific world view was rapidly being established, and predicted that once the detailed workings of the brain were eventually revealed, erroneous Christian concepts about the nature of humans and the world would no longer be tenable; traditional conceptions of the "soul" would be replaced by a new understanding of the physical basis of mind. 

He was sceptical of organized religion, referring to himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism".*

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."

 Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 27, 2013)

So the first chicken appeared suddenly on earth as an adult, having never hatched from a chicken egg?

How many of them appeared at once?  One? Two?  A million?  

What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 27, 2013)

> What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?



1) Godditit
2) Satandidit
3) If the answer is in the Bible, that's enough. If the answer isn't in the Bible, you don't need to know it anyways.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> > What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Although I can't remember the issue, I actually once had that sort of conversation with a Jehovah's witness:

"Well, how do you know that's true?"

"It's in the Bible."

"Well, how do you know that it being in the Bible makes it true?"

"Because it's the Bible."


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 27, 2013)

People who are blessed with faith shouldn't send it into battle with science;   they should put it in the safest place they can find.


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2013)

this is an even stupider version of Pascual's Wager. all of the proposed theories of how life started are almost certainly wrong. especially creationism via the bible, and evolution as described by Darwin.


----------



## Toro (Nov 29, 2013)

Just as a reminder: most right-wing critics of Evolution aren't critics because they are interested in empirical understanding.  They are critics of Evolution because it challenges their religious beliefs.  They wish to tear down The Theory of Evolution because they want their version of the origins of the universe to remain unchallenged.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

Toro said:


> Just as a reminder: most right-wing critics of Evolution aren't critics because they are interested in empirical understanding.  They are critics of Evolution because it challenges their religious beliefs.  They wish to tear down The Theory of Evolution because they want their version of the origins of the universe to remain unchallenged.



Exactly right. What is interesting that Science has no interest in "challenging religious beliefs". It is purely a quest for factual knowledge. The problem is that religion cannot refute these scientific facts that they see as a "challenge" to their beliefs. So the fundamentalists have taken to inventing their own instead of remaining within the confines of religion. That puts religion at a disadvantage because it means that religion is now being held to scientific standards of proof. Not a smart move and they would be better advised to remain within the sphere of religion where their only have to deal with "challenges" from other religions.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 29, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > What is the creationists' plausible theory on that?
> ...



Or, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...






Would you like to quote the Bible, IQFree?

Well, here's one that applies to the theory without proof,....Darwins' idea....


Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 
Hebrews, 11:1


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Ironic considering that PoliticalSpice refuses to comprehend proof that can be seen with the naked eye.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...




Seen??

Naked eye????


*You dunce...." we never see the very process we profess to study"....Stephen Gould*




It seems that in attempting to 'get even' with me for numerous spankings....you don't recognize how truly ignorant you reveal your self to be.

The most famous popularizer of evolutionary theory, Stephen Gould, has, on numerous occasions revealed exactly what I have claimed

1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have *no direct evidence* of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

and 

'Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwins argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, *we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study *(1977a, 86[5]:14).


And this:

2. "Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that *Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable *without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that *the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution.* In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted *not because it can be proven..*.but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium." 
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




I need better opponents......


...and you can go back to slapping soap bubbles out of the air.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




PoliticalSpice still denies that these fossils actually exist and can be seen with the naked eye! 

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...






Cut to the chase: where have fossils demonstrated that one species changed into another?



This may save you from padding your resume of ignorance:

He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwins predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.
 (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Now that I have your your brief attention span let me remind you that soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record. However DNA does preserve features of prior species. Darwin was right that the gaps would be filled in but since DNA was completely unknown during his lifetime he could not have guessed that it would be via a different scientific discipline. 

Your religious beliefs must be so insecure since you persist in this futile attack on the proven science of evolution. Does it keep you awake at night too?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

*" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."*
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



So the bible says it and you say that settles it. Faith is confidence in what you hope for and assurance about what you do not see.   Feel free to believe this  and I'll continue to believe you to be an ignorant and gullible person as you've just proved.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level. 

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Since it is readily apparent that is how you approach your own religious beliefs there is no reason whatsoever for me to make the same mistake that you are making, PoliticalSpice.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





Your loss.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 29, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 30, 2013)

Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.

Evolution is a fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.
> 
> Evolution is a fact.



Darwinism isn't.....so what is the explanation for evolution?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2013)

The physical laws of this universe.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like more REPUBLICAN ANTI-Science.
> ...



What "explanation" are you looking for, PoliticalSpice?

There isn't an "explanation" in your religious texts for nuclear power, heavier than air flight, geology, economics, healthcare, quantum physics, etc, etc so why must there be one for evolution?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> The physical laws of this universe.







*"The physical laws of this universe."*

Rocks...you're showing a huge amount of ignorance about current theories in science.

Again.



So....*which universe would that be?*

Scientists today have posited *the 'multiverse'...*

"some of *the worlds premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties,* and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidentsa random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universes features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.If the multiverse idea is correct, then* the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principlesto explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they areis futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isnt true."*
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720


Newton had claimed that physical laws of motion were the same everywhere in the universe. *Contemporary physicists have postulated a multiverse in which we can find every permutation of the physical laws we find here on earth.* The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine





What's really amusing is how you keep saying that I don't know about science.....yet, I'm constantly teaching you about it.


Perhaps you should begin to recognize how truly ignorant you are.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Evolution is currently the best explanation.  

The Creationists' 'theory' of life appearing, all fully formed, all species their own beginning and end, all at  the direction of a supernatural being, no longer merits the label of being an explanation.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The evolution of the horse.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 30, 2013)

The futility of trying to argue science with religious people is that they will insist on framing the argument as follows:

1.  anything that you assert to be true must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and then further beyond all unreasonable doubt, or it remains false if the religious people deem it so.

2.  anything the religious people claim to be true cannot be disproven unless all the criteria of 1 above have been met in the attempted disproving.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...








Bet your reputation on that?


Oh...wait....you have no reputation.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The evolution of the horse is well documented.  What isn't well documented is an alternative explanation as to where the modern horse came from.

If you have scientific evidence that the modern horse suddenly appeared on earth, fully formed and in its present state, as a species, 

and that it has no ancestors, in fact, originally, doesn't even have parents,

then you should post it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...








*"The evolution of the horse is well documented."

No it isn't.
*

This is one more fabrication that the ignorant accept.
Raise your hoof.






Let's see how difficult it is to destroy any idea that you have knowledge or cachet about this subject:

a.	"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of *Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded* or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29


b. *The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.*
Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science


c. There are several *huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. *Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps.  But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:114, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122123, 203, 1951


d. 	First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. *We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution* because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)




And here is Stephen Gould laughing at you: 

'The model of the ladder is much more than
 merely wrong.  It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution progressive and triumphant-- for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages.
 Stephen Jay Gould wrote in
his essay  "Life's Little Joke" which appears in Bully for Brontosaurus.




Do you understand yet????

It's a guess....a belief.


And you accept it on faith: the religion of Darwinism.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Well now, lets see how easy it is to debunk your boilerplate creationist lies, parsed, edited and phony quotes.

You have used this phony quote in at least 4 separate threads now, even after you have been presented with the data showing your lies and falsehoods. 


Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

Review: Fatal Flaws
Reports of the National Center for Science Education



> Hank Hanegraaff's book _Fatal Flaws_ is an abbreviation of his earlier book _The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution_ (Nashville: Word, 1998). For the most part, the book reiterates standard creationist arguments. Previous work by Hanegraaff's Christian Research Institute shows that he and his staff have little tolerance for hucksters and thieves in preachers' clothing (notice their exposés on Benny Hinn), which makes the mistakes and poor research in this book somewhat surprising. There is only room to discuss a few of the many errors in this book.
> 
> 
> In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
> ...




Pretty cool, eh? There's no faith requirement in science. It lives and breathes on facts.

On the other hand, creationists have no choice but to resort to lies and fraud, as you continually do, in order to press their agenda of falsehood.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And another creationist lie.


Horse Evolution
by Paul Garner BSc (Hons), FGS

Introduction

The fossil record of horses has often featured in the scientific debate about origins, with many biologists regarding it as important evidence in support of evolutionary theory. For instance, in the textbook Biological Science, Soper (1997 p.890) says:



> The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny) based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present.




However, reading through the more complete record of biological description, we find:

Summary



> The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.



References

Cavanaugh, D.P., Wood, T.C., Wise, K.P. 2003. Fossil Equidae: a monobaraminic, stratomorphic series, in: Ivey, R.L., editor. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp.143-153.
Ewart, J.C. 1894. The development of the skeleton of the limbs of the horse, with observations on polydactyly. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 28:342-69.
Garner P. 1998. Its a horse, of course! A creationist view of phylogenetic change in the equid family. Origins (25):13-23.
Hulbert, R.C. 1988. Calippus and Protohippus (Mammalia, Perissodactyla, Equidae) from the Miocene (Barstovian-early Hemphillian) of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Sciences 32:221-340. 
MacFadden, B.J. 1984. Systematics and phylogeny of Hipparion, Neohipparion, Nannippus, and Cormohipparion (Mammalia, Equidae) from the Miocene and Pliocene of the New World. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 179:1-196.
MacFadden, B.J. 1987. Fossil horses from Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Copes law, and the evolution of body size. Paleobiology 12:355-69.
MacFadden, B.J. 1992. Fossil horses: systematics, paleobiology, and evolution of the family Equidae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marsh, O.C. 1879. Polydactyle horses, recent and extinct. American Journal of Science 17:499-505.
Marsh, O.C. 1892. Recent polydactyle horses. American Journal of Science 43:339-55.
Roberts, M., Reiss, M., Monger, G. 2000. Advanced Biology. Nelson.
Scherer, S., editor. 1993. Typen des Lebens. Pascal-Verlag, Berlin. [German language publication]
Soper, R., editor. 1997. Biological Science 1 and 2. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stein-Cadenbach, H. 2003. Hybriden, Chromosomenstrukturen und Artbildung bei Pferden (Equidae), in: Scherer, S., editor. Typen des Lebens. Pascal-Verlag, Berlin, pp.225-244. [German language publication]
Struthers, J. 1893. On the development of the bones of the foot of the horse, and of digital bones generally and on a case of polydactyly in the horse. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 28:51-62.
Webb, S.D., Hulbert, R.C.. 1986. Systematics and evolution of Pseudhipparion (Mammalia, Equidae) from the late Neogene of the Gulf Coastal Plain and the Great Plains, in: Flanagan, K.M., Lillegraven, J.A., editors. Vertebrates, phylogeny, and philosophy. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, Special Paper 3.
Wise, K.P. 1990. Baraminology: a young-earth creation biosystematic method, in: Walsh, R.E., Brooks, C.L., editors. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism: Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp.345-358.
Wood, T.C., Murray, M.J. 2003. Understanding the Pattern of Life: Origins and Organization of the Species. Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...






> There are several *huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses.*


*

Here we see PC trying to cover her lies by falsifying her already falsified creationist "quotes"


Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"


And:


Dawkins: Why Intelligent Design proponents are so fond of gaps - The Panda's Thumb

Dawkins: Why Intelligent Design proponents are so fond of gaps





			Richard Dawkins gave an excellent lecture at the Kansas University's Hall Center for the Humanities on October 1 2006, discussing "The God Delusion". The full video can be watched at this link/ Since Dawkins is such an excellent communicator, I intend to provide some highlights of his talk on PandasThumb. Dawkins explains how creationists seem to be fond on gaps and take any opportunity to point to scientists admitting to such gaps. However, as Dawkins explained elsewhere as well, creationists seem to be fond of quote mining as well, even if it requires removing much of the argument. 

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Accept nothing on faith, especially the faithful lies and falsehoods of creationists.

Horse Evolution

Horse Evolution

This is a companion file for the Transitional Fossils FAQ and is part of the Fossil Horses FAQs. In this post I will try to describe the modern view of evolution within the horse family. I apologize in advance for the length; I didn't want to cut it down any more than this, because horse evolution has been oversimplified too many times already. I wanted people to see some of the detail and complexity of the fossil record of a fairly well known vertebrate group. (In fact, even at this length, this post is still only a summary!) People who are in a hurry may just want to read the intro and summary and look at the tree.



And here is Stephen J. Gould turning in his grave over creationist lies.

http://www.sjgouldessays.com/content/nh_essay_summaries_content/05 Bully for Brontosaurus.pdf


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Let me quote directly from your tedious distractions:

*We now know of many other branches of horse evolution.*

Your own post concedes that the horse did in fact evolve.  lol, go argue with yourself.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Note that the sum total of PC's 'argument' against evolution is that the record is imperfect and incomplete.  That's all she has.

And that's from the same PC in another thread who claimed that science has vindicated and verified the Genesis version of creation.

And since she's eliminated evolution (in her own mind) as the explanation for life on earth,

why won't she provide us with a plausible alternative explanation to how life got here and how it exists as we know it today.

You can't eliminate ALL possible explanations.  Life is here, now.  It HAS to have gotten here somehow.

So, tell us, PC, how it all got here.  Give us a plausible scenario, without any evolution occurring in the scenario.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...





I've learned not to expect honesty in any form from you.


And....once again......you prove same.



You: "The evolution of the horse is well documented."

Me:  No it isn't.



First....clearly, it is not well documented.

Three is no fossil trail such that boneheads like you claim as the path of evolution.


What there are are numerous DIFFERENT specimens that one or another 'scientists' claim to be horses.




Over and over the literature speaks thusly: "The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete."




"....many other branches..."

*So, you lying sack of offal....there is no documentation such as Darwin predicted.*


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It Is a shame that you're forced to lash out like a petulant child when your lies are exposed. 


But that's the history of fundamentalist zealots who are clueless as the lies and falsehoods they cut and paste.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?



It's only a 'political' concept to radical bible-thumpers and their water carriers.

The rest of the civilized world sees it as an amply supported scientific theory.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2013)

Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution

Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.

"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "

Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University

Why mess with perfection?


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
> 
> Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
> 
> ...



I'm all for challenging scientific theories and ideas, always and always and always.

But when the alleged 'challenge' comes in the form of intelligent design, I know the person isn't serious about challenging the science at all and for them, it's all about religion and politics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
> 
> Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.
> 
> ...



Downs


----------



## NLT (Dec 2, 2013)

God created evolution.....there now stop arguing people.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
> ...



As a theory, evolution is right around ManMade Global Warming and far, far short of the theory of Gravity or Relativity.

I think the as yet unidentified FailSafe mechanism built into cells is a major item that can't just be ignored because it rattles your faith in  Darwin


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution
> ...



Yes, we know, Downs people are untermenchen.

You can't have functioning eugenics or a Master Race without belief in Darwin


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Is that your expert scientific opinion?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?
> ...




Not so.


Pick up a book.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yes, so.

Pick up a book besides the Bible.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Wait for it. PC is about to drench the thread with " quotes" she mines from Harun Yahya.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Is that how you say "I surrender"?


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No. It was a valid question.

Are you saying that it's not 'your' opinion, or that you're just not an expert?


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And yet we've watched things like E. Coli mutate and develop new capabilities (like being able to consume the materials in a petri dish) and then not reverse the mutation even after thousands of generations. (Lenski's paper). There's a lot we don't understand about biological mechanisms and I, for one, am not ready to throw the baby away with the bathwater just because something can't be currently explained.

I'm waiting for a Discotute paper to explain Lenski's bacteria or how some bacteria developed the ability to consume nylon, something that is completely artificial.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.



We can't explain everything about the Solar System, so we should bring back Geocentrism. 

Teach the controversy!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.




"...contradictory...."

Indeed.


"It's hard to take anyone serious..."

If you are referring to me....you have either misunderstood the issue, or are obfuscating to win a point.


My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Stephen Gould expresses the same view:
"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge




Clearly you are uninformed.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.
> ...



Clearly you are misinformed.

But anyone who takes you seriously gets what they deserve... even dumber.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.
> ...




Have you forgotten that your two phony "quotes" have been debunked as creationist lies at least three times now? 


Clearly you have no issue perpetrating a continued fraud when it serves your agenda of superstition and ignorance.


----------



## WillReadmore (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.
> 
> 
> Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


The first is just the "missing link" argument.  But, evolution doesn't really work in the form of links on a chain - it works like a bush with changes happening all along the twigs.

From there, we need to remember that we find almost nothing in the fossil record compared to the volume of life that actually existed.  Plus, life is mobile.  The combination of these factors means that the chance of finding a fossil immediately between two other fossils in an evolutionary progression is astronomically low.


As for the second contention that we haven't observed a new species arise turns out to be false.  We HAVE seen that.  You can find examples quite easily by searching the internet.


What's discouraging to me is that we still see proponents of these false arguments.  Why?  If that is the basis of the argument against evolution, then ... case closed!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Its my opinion and its a pretty damn good one too


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

WillReadmore said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.
> ...







Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
Good thing you came along.


Now...as far as your view of Darwin's theory....perhaps you should brush up:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
 a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
 b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.


This is what is known as a 'bottom-up' view.

The discovery of the Burgess Shale disprove same.

See if manifold will take you when he goes to the library.....


----------



## WillReadmore (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
> Good thing you came along.
> 
> 
> ...


The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented.  Darwin was an early thinker.  Coming up with something he didn't fully understand is not an argument against evolution.  And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind.

I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves.  It certainly shows an explosion of new life, much of which was later eradicated - events of ebb and flow that are not unique in earth's biological history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

WillReadmore said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
> ...





"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.



"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom Im reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.


----------



## WillReadmore (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> "The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
> 'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.
> 
> 
> ...


Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly.

And, you give no light in any other way.  So, the only question is - why am I even bothering to respond?

Help me, please!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 2, 2013)

WillReadmore said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
> ...



What is your first language?

Clearly, not English.

"Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly."

1. It is Darwin's theory that is in dispute here.
Do you know that Darwin's is but one of the theories of evolution?

2. Marx and Engels saw in Darwin's theory support of their communism.
The information is not to dispute evolution, but to enlighten as to why Darwin is advanced in secular institutions.



"...why am I even bothering to respond?"

OK...why?


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2013)

WillReadmore said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
> ...



I suspect what you will find is that PC is not able to string words together into coherent sentences. Her posts are collections of cut and paste " quotes"


----------



## WillReadmore (Dec 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> What is your first language?
> 
> Clearly, not English.
> 
> ...


Seriously?  You actually think someone wants to teach science because Marx and/or Engels liked it?  Who dreamed up THAT nonsense?

Look.  Evolution is a foundation of ALL modern biology.

It's a topic needed for college entrance in biological science majors in better colleges and universities.  Also, it's a prime example of how modern scientists apply the rules of science in all fields.

I don't know where you are getting this nonsense of yours, but you really need to start looking somewhere else.  You have NO idea what you're playing with.


----------



## jasonnfree (Dec 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's what I call her, cut and paste.  She read a couple ann coulter books and awarded herself a phd. in education.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?
> ...



You have to understand the PC scheme here, which is not uncommon among the evolution deniers.

1.  She endeavours to show that the theory of evolution is imperfect and incomplete.

2.  Having done that, she then tries to make an enormous leap, which is to declare that the theory of evolution because of 1 above is nothing more than a faith-based belief, a religion of sorts.

3.  By (wrongly) bringing the theory of evolution down to the level of a religion, she then believes she's put it up against the Bible on a level playing field,

as if the theory of evolution vs. Christianity is no different than, say, Hinduism vs. Christianity.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why do we use bloodhounds for tracking people if eugenics doesn't work?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Call a doctor immediately, it's clear that you bumped your head and are concussed because you're spouting jibberish


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So what exactly do you trace your ancestry back to?  What do you believe was the first living creature in your family tree,

and what is your scientific evidence to support that?


----------



## Peterf (Dec 3, 2013)

DGS49 said:


> Religious people who are rational (yes, there are some of us) have had to conclude that large portions of Genesis are allegorical and not factual, and that the scribes and prophets were reporting on the world as they understood it, and not the world as it exists from a scientific standpoint.
> 
> "Creation-ism" is not a science, and has no place in any credible academic institution. "Intelligent design" is merely an attempt to shade misunderstandings of Evolution so that they appear to be "the Hand of God."  Fine for Church or dinner conversation, but not really appropriate for a high school "science" class.



I'm sorry but religious people are by definition irrational, preferring faith to reason.

But I'll stretch a point in your case and say that at times you  reach the level of semi-rationality.  Your final paragraph is really very good.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You don't believe selective breeding works.  How do you explain the superiority of bloodhounds for tracking?

Random accident?


----------



## Peterf (Dec 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...




I believe that I - and every one else - am related to all extant forms of life.   My evidence is that I share a proportion of my DNA with them.

Since the discovery of DNA to be a creationist is the equivalent of being a flat-earther.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I thought you were kidding. That's sad.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So have we at least established that you reject the so-called young earth 'theories', and thus

you acknowledge that the Bible is in fact wrong about that aspect of creation?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

Peterf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Well at least our people of faith are not still murdering people who espouse heretical beliefs based on science (as far as I know).

Nowadays the 'heretics' are merely pelted with snotty remarks, as we see in this thread.


----------



## Peterf (Dec 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I cannot believe that you are unaware that Muslims are STILL murdering people who have abandoned their religion, often because science has convinced them that it is a load of old codswallop.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 3, 2013)

Some of the plaintiffs and the judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case received death threats. The judge ended up with US Marshal protection for a while.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

Peterf said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



Is there a long list somewhere of Muslim-Americans killing other Americans because they believe in evolution?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2013)

Okay, for sake of argument, let's remove evolution from the list of possible explanations for how we and all our fellow living creatures got here.

For sake of argument, you cannot use evolution as any part of your explanation.

Now:

Explain how we got here, and support your explanation with a mountain of evidence, where the evidence for evolution used to sit.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 3, 2013)

Peterf said:


> I'm sorry but religious people are by definition irrational, preferring faith to reason.





How ironic that you would be irrational while stating the above.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Okay, for sake of argument, let's remove evolution from the list of possible explanations for how we and all our fellow living creatures got here.
> 
> For sake of argument, you cannot use evolution as any part of your explanation.
> 
> ...





You ignorant fool! Didn't they teach you about Stewie's return pad in school?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 4, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Isn't the microbe that consumes oil spills a step in that direction?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 4, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 4, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



In your opinion!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 4, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your motivation of course, PoliticalSpice. Only fundamentalist Christians are waging a "war on science".


----------



## Peterf (Dec 4, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Not as far as I know.  But there are Muslims who kill other Muslims because they have stopped believing in Islam.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...






I have a war on science the way Republicans have a war on women.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...





There is a link right in the post you quoted.....clean off your specs, old timer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 4, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And you are losing in both.


----------



## elektra (Dec 5, 2013)

Its a shame that the Liberal Democrats are attacking everything in the USA, Liberals are winning this battle, they completely control the brainwashing of children in our schools and they will not relinquish that power, its much to important to the Liberal agenda.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 5, 2013)

The judge in Kitzmiller is a Republican, nominated by Rick Santorum and appointed by George W Bush. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of allowing nonscience in science classrooms.

You want Godditit (and let's be honest here about what the end goal is) in science classrooms then start producing peer-reviewed work. I don't mean in Creation Science Weekly either. Start getting work in Nature and Science and the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Put it in places where the experts can actually examine the work and see if it stands up to technical scrutiny. Present papers at real conferences. Go through the process. Do enough of that and it will end up in grad students texts, then under grad texts, then survey course texts, then children's science texts.

Biologists would be chomping at the bit to disprove evolution. Overturn a century and a half of observations and testing means someone's getting a Nobel Prize. There's a reason that isn't being done and that reason is that regardless of what the e-warriors think, evolution works.

Or we could just blame it on the Democrats. That's good too.


----------



## elektra (Dec 5, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> The judge in Kitzmiller is a Republican, nominated by Rick Santorum and appointed by George W Bush. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of allowing nonscience in science classrooms.
> 
> You want Godditit (and let's be honest here about what the end goal is) in science classrooms then start producing peer-reviewed work. I don't mean in Creation Science Weekly either. Start getting work in Nature and Science and the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Put it in places where the experts can actually examine the work and see if it stands up to technical scrutiny. Present papers at real conferences. Go through the process. Do enough of that and it will end up in grad students texts, then under grad texts, then survey course texts, then children's science texts.
> 
> ...



Science, you could not hack it as a Scientist, we know nothing compared to the amount of knowledge we have yet to learn. A Scientist must accept all possibilities, otherwise he is a bit closed minded, and being closed minded makes for a poor scientist.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 5, 2013)

Feel free to tell that to the National Academies of Science. 



> Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.



Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Please let us know their response.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 11, 2013)

These threads always have a single common problem that obliterates the core idea.  They ALWAYS focus on supposed holes in evolutionary theory.  Aside from the fact that the vast majority of those holes are due to a direct misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and the supporting evidence, they are rather meaningless.  If you want creationism to be taught in schools then disproving evolution is not going to help one whit.  You need to establish creationism as a scientific theory.  The sad truth is that it is not.  Creationism is a faith based belief, bereft of any actual evidence.  It does not need evidence any more than your belief in God requires it &#8211; those are personal faith decisions and do not belong in the classroom.  

As has been stated here, you can homeschool your children or take them to private institutions that teach such.  That is your right and your freedom but you cannot demand that those things become part of the public education system.  Your personal beliefs, no matter how sacred they are to you, simply do not belong there.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 12, 2013)

elektra said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > The judge in Kitzmiller is a Republican, nominated by Rick Santorum and appointed by George W Bush. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of allowing nonscience in science classrooms.
> ...



Irony squared! 

Since you have no way to measure what we "have yet to learn" it is utterly foolish to make such a comparison. But that explains why you can't "hack it as a Scientist".


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 12, 2013)

elektra said:


> Its a shame that the Liberal Democrats are attacking everything in the USA, Liberals are winning this battle, they completely control the brainwashing of children in our schools and they will not relinquish that power, its much to important to the Liberal agenda.



Do you honestly believe that future advances in scientific knowledge in the area of evolution/origin of life/ etc. is going to move us backwards,

closer to the rendition provided in Genesis in the Bible?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 12, 2013)

elektra said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > The judge in Kitzmiller is a Republican, nominated by Rick Santorum and appointed by George W Bush. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of allowing nonscience in science classrooms.
> ...



If a scientist has to accept all possibilites, then I suppose he has to accept the possibility that everything is an illusion, the possibility for example that the Earth only seems to be 5 or 6 billion years old because a supernatural supreme being tricked us by making it look that way.

So does a scientist have to accept that possibility?  You say yes.  But does not a scientist also have the right to categorize the relative merit of that possibility?

Does he not also have the right, and in fact the responsibility, to use reason, logic, and his knowledge of the available evidence to judge the odds of that possibility as high or as low as he sees fit?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



I would not say that.  You actually can measure what is unknown (I dont know what is in my neighbors house and I know that I dont know it  ) and science is quite clear that it definitely does not know half of whats out there.  What we cant measure is what we think we know but is actually incorrect but history shows us that most of what we think of as simple fact today is likely incorrect.  Hell, we still use some of those models that are known to be incorrect because they are far simpler.  Bohrs Atom is a good example of that.

All that, of course, does not justify the disregard of scientific theory based on, well, nothing.  The funny part is that when what we thought is overturned it is not by some declaration of faith or another answer that was already known but by another scientific theory that fits the facts that are already established.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 12, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



It is the comparison that is utterly meaningless. Your neighbor's house is finite. Knowledge might be finite or infinite but we don't know that yet. So comparing what we know against an imaginary quantity of unknown knowledge means that the result is 99.999999999999% wrong.


----------

