Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[AllieBaba]

Go for it.

People are carping that *no one with a respect for science disputes the theory of evolution". And when they say that, they're lying.

 

[AllieBaba]

But professor emeritus' and molecular biology department heads probably have more experience, knowledge, education and field study than, say, you.

 

[Woyzeck]

Go for it.

People are carping that *no one with a respect for science disputes the theory of evolution". And when they say that, they're lying.

You brought up the list of scientists. I presume you would have an idea of where I could start?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I'll go to Harvard's evolution homepage and go to Harvard's references to get the view of Harvard scholars and yes I agree with them.

We don't read the Bible then try to get science to fit into that context, much to your dismay that's not how science works.

I am reminded of Wildwood Claire's recent award-winner video on this topic...

Science is NOT making up theories, and then scurrying around to find answers to the fantasized "theory", neglecting every OTHER piece of evidence......science is taking in all the evidence, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, coming up with a theory to explain every item of fact and data ...!!

Here's now Eric Hovind FAILS TO DO THIS.............video... plain as day, fundamentalist Christians do NOT want factual evidence to get in their way!!!!


Defining "Creation Science" in 30 Seconds, with Eric Hovind

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmXLkXFe2Qw]‪Defining "Creation Science" in 30 Seconds, with Eric Hovind‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Uh oh,typical evolutionist response,surprise,surprise,no evidence again.

 

[JScott]

Hey look, a chemistry professor from Harvard..I'm sure he's not a REAL scientist...

San Fran emeritus professor of biology...another unreal scientist...

Oh look, another uneducated lunatic...Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

Support for evolution by religious bodies

Buddhist
 
81%
Hindu
 
80%
Jewish
 
77%
Unaffiliated
 
72%
Catholic
 
58%
Orthodox
 
54%
Mainline Protestant
 
51%
Muslim
 
45%
Hist. Black Protest.
 
38%
Evang. Protestant
 
24%
Mormon
 
22%
Jehovah's Witnesses
 
8%
Total U.S. population percentage:48%
Source: Pew Forum[64]

Wow, where do you and your boyfriend fit in?

 

[JScott]

Ah, we're back to "the universities say it so it's true!"

Despite the fact that there are many actual scientists who dispute...

No I'm back to saying I'll take Harvard scholars view of macroevolution over yours and the Bibles.

Don't tell me you only listen to the ones that supports your view ? That does not sound like a person that takes science seriously. I don't mean any offense by any of this but these artifacts are real,and they exist all over the world.

The facts speak for themselves. Your facts dont.

 

[JScott]

Ah, we're back to "the universities say it so it's true!"

Despite the fact that there are many actual scientists who dispute...

No I'm back to saying I'll take Harvard scholars view of macroevolution over yours and the Bibles.

Mine and certain noted Harvard scholars, you mean.

In other words, you'll chose to believe only the scholars who agree with you.

And pretend the others don't exist.

Science at work!

 

[JScott]

No, I'll go to Harvard's evolution homepage and go to Harvard's references to get the view of Harvard scholars and yes I agree with them.

We don't read the Bible then try to get science to fit into that context, much to your dismay that's not how science works.

I am reminded of Wildwood Claire's recent award-winner video on this topic...

Science is NOT making up theories, and then scurrying around to find answers to the fantasized "theory", neglecting every OTHER piece of evidence......science is taking in all the evidence, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, coming up with a theory to explain every item of fact and data ...!!

Here's now Eric Hovind FAILS TO DO THIS.............video... plain as day, fundamentalist Christians do NOT want factual evidence to get in their way!!!!


Defining "Creation Science" in 30 Seconds, with Eric Hovind

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmXLkXFe2Qw]‪Defining "Creation Science" in 30 Seconds, with Eric Hovind‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Good post. It tells it exactly the way it is. The son of a tax cheat creationist is also a zealot creationist preacher. Who woulda thunk.

He wont go as far as daddy though. He doesnt have the gift his daddy has. Anyone with a propensity for debate would tear this guy up.

 

[JScott]

The mathematicians whose work led to it...the brothers Chudnovski.

Anymore?

I don't know, what are you getting at?

Well, if theres sooo many of them, gimme a list.

 

[geauxtohell]

Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

where did I ever say they were clones. What I have stated and very clearly,I have said there is diversity within a gene pool ,but the offspring will only be what information allows from the gene pool. A dog has the genetic information of a dog. A human has genetic information to produce a human.

?

You realize that the nucleotide codes are the same for all eukaryotes, right?

A dog's DNA codes for it to be a "dog" because that is the way it's genome evolved, not because it has it's own special DNA.

As further support of this notion, our DNA sequences become similar as we move up the various branches of the tree.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

where did I ever say they were clones. What I have stated and very clearly,I have said there is diversity within a gene pool ,but the offspring will only be what information allows from the gene pool. A dog has the genetic information of a dog. A human has genetic information to produce a human.

?

You realize that the nucleotide codes are the same for all eukaryotes, right?

A dog's DNA codes for it to be a "dog" because that is the way it's genome evolved, not because it has it's own special DNA.

As further support of this notion, our DNA sequences become similar as we move up the various branches of the tree.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Actually it's 95 % , but then again that shows that the creator could use similar substances to create the diversity we see.

But you realize national geographic is not all that reliable ?

But if you take that 5% difference of three billion base pairs,you come up with 150,000,000 that is the difference in the Total DNA difference between a chimp and human.

That is a boat load of mutations in difference.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey look, a chemistry professor from Harvard..I'm sure he's not a REAL scientist...

San Fran emeritus professor of biology...another unreal scientist...

Oh look, another uneducated lunatic...Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

Support for evolution by religious bodies

Buddhist
 
81%
Hindu
 
80%
Jewish
 
77%
Unaffiliated
 
72%
Catholic
 
58%
Orthodox
 
54%
Mainline Protestant
 
51%
Muslim
 
45%
Hist. Black Protest.
 
38%
Evang. Protestant
 
24%
Mormon
 
22%
Jehovah's Witnesses
 
8%
Total U.S. population percentage:48%
Source: Pew Forum[64]

Wow, where do you and your boyfriend fit in?

Great, the original argument...again..."everybody else thinks you're stupid so that means evolution leads to speciation".

You really ARE a learned and sophisticated master debater!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well i am off to cali everyone have a great weekend.

 

[JScott]

Hey look, a chemistry professor from Harvard..I'm sure he's not a REAL scientist...

San Fran emeritus professor of biology...another unreal scientist...

Oh look, another uneducated lunatic...Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

Support for evolution by religious bodies

Buddhist
 
81%
Hindu
 
80%
Jewish
 
77%
Unaffiliated
 
72%
Catholic
 
58%
Orthodox
 
54%
Mainline Protestant
 
51%
Muslim
 
45%
Hist. Black Protest.
 
38%
Evang. Protestant
 
24%
Mormon
 
22%
Jehovah's Witnesses
 
8%
Total U.S. population percentage:48%
Source: Pew Forum[64]

Wow, where do you and your boyfriend fit in?

Great, the original argument...again..."everybody else thinks you're stupid so that means evolution leads to speciation".

You really ARE a learned and sophisticated master debater!

I think it clearly shows that you are in a class all to your own.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I've never denied evolution. I deny that evolution is the way new species are created.

Why would anyone come to dinner and only drink the wine and eat the ice cream?

It's like you pick and choose what part of the menu you want to eat and drink, but leave out all the meat and vegetables because they are too hard to chew!

Yeah I'd like to see a secular university, public or private, who didn't include macroevolution in its teaching of evolution.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've never denied evolution. I deny that evolution is the way new species are created.

Why would anyone come to dinner and only drink the wine and eat the ice cream?

It's like you pick and choose what part of the menu you want to eat and drink, but leave out all the meat and vegetables because they are too hard to chew!

wow. Another brilliant scientific argument that *proves* evolution leads to speciation.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've never denied evolution. I deny that evolution is the way new species are created.

Why would anyone come to dinner and only drink the wine and eat the ice cream?

It's like you pick and choose what part of the menu you want to eat and drink, but leave out all the meat and vegetables because they are too hard to chew!

Yeah I'd like to see a secular university, public or private, who didn't include macroevolution in its teaching of evolution.

Do you not understand English?

When did I ever deny that evolution takes place w/in a species?

And is this a scientific argument for the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

Because you two have drifted into 6th grade lala land.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why would anyone come to dinner and only drink the wine and eat the ice cream?

It's like you pick and choose what part of the menu you want to eat and drink, but leave out all the meat and vegetables because they are too hard to chew!

Yeah I'd like to see a secular university, public or private, who didn't include macroevolution in its teaching of evolution.

Do you not understand English?

When did I ever deny that evolution takes place w/in a species?

And is this a scientific argument for the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

Because you two have drifted into 6th grade lala land.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.



Don't worry I'll accept your apology for insulting me based off YOUR ignorance of what macroevolution means. Macroevolution, an enormous part of evolution, is exactly what you and YWC have spent so much effort desperately trying to deny all these thousands of posts.

I think that's a good challenge, find a secular university, public or private, that doesn't include macroevolution in their evolution curriculum.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, well anyway, we're still stuck at "The Theory is Correct because the Universities Teach It".

You think that's scientific proof?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ok, well anyway, we're still stuck at "The Theory is Correct because the Universities Teach It".

You think that's scientific proof?

No that's not what proves evolution, all the scientific evidence does.

However I'm doubting the overwhelming majority, if not all secular universities lead by the smartest people on the subject with credentials to back them up would teach something they didn't think was accurate.