Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

[Dr.Traveler]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Scientific theories are proved true or proved false based on their ability to make verifiable predictions. Until such point they are merely hypothesis.

In a science class teachers have a responsibility to prove theory, not hypothesis. If you can provide a prediction made by Creationism that is verifiable via experimentation, fine, teach it in science classes. Otherwise, reserve it for a philosophy course.

In the long run, Evolution is going to win out for the same reason the Kepler model won out over the Ptolemaic model, namely the Kepler model actually let you build accurate calenders and star charts and the Ptolemaic model didn't. Evolutionary theory helps develop cutting edge medical treatments and advances in genetics. Creationism doesn't.

Understand as I say this that I am a Christian who very much believes in the Biblical version of events, but we're at the point where if you're denying that evolution takes place, you're pretty much on par with the Flat Earth folks or the Ptolemaic model folks. Clearly evolution is in progress. What's interesting is that evolution even helps resolve some of the more difficult biblical stories. Noah's Ark makes a whole lot more sense when you add in the idea that Noah's original group of animals could, through evolution and natural selection, have diversified out into what we have now.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I bet there's a lot more than 6% of Democrats who are Christian, or another religion that believes in an all powerful God......

 

[flacaltenn]

Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

Well, if we had evolved from anything other than a monkey, we probably wouldn't be so fucked up now.

Having a common ancestor doesn't mean we "evolved" from a monkey. Sigh.

We all have a common ancestor in slime mold.. That scientific statement right there requires some faith to accept -- don't it?

Thank GOD that the 4 major extinctions in earth's history didn't take out ole slimy...

 

[rdean]

Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

Well, if we had evolved from anything other than a monkey, we probably wouldn't be so fucked up now.

Having a common ancestor doesn't mean we "evolved" from a monkey. Sigh.

We all have a common ancestor in slime mold.. That scientific statement right there requires some faith to accept -- don't it?

Thank GOD that the 4 major extinctions in earth's history didn't take out ole slimy...

I just shows life is resilient and keeps coming back.

It's been so long since I started this thread, I read it from the beginning. I was amazed at how much sense I made and how ridiculous the right wingers are. And still, they insist that more than 6% of scientists are Republican. I say the number is vastly overstated.

 

[Stashman]

Evolution is the theory of man making a monkey out of himself.​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

 

[flacaltenn]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

You still have anatomical vestiges of gill slits. And yes they slithered IN/OUT of water the way snakes slither into it now. Likely adaptation to unreliable water levels or food supply in the local pool.

As far as mating -- well -- they did it something like ----- .

 

[konradv]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

Wrong, go back and reread your text books. We don't have time to reteach you everyday.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Is he so ignorant that he denies the great Southern Black Baptists? Or How about the Kennedy's, who were all supposedly devote Catholics? Aren't they Christians who believe in the all powerful God? How about Mr Obama and his family? Is rdean ready to make fun of his beliefs?

You see deano, your rant does nothing but destroy your own..............

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

Wrong, go back and reread your text books. We don't have time to reteach you everyday.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer for you

 

[Nosmo King]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Teach creationism in philosophy class, not biology class.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's the reason some folks simply cannot wrap their heads around evolution. Vanity.

Mankind wrote that he was created in the "image of God". Some folks are flattered by that prospect and simply cannot accept that modern humans could have evolved from less sophisticated species. After all, despite what scientific evidence is presented, it flies in the vain face of some people because they are supposedly created in the 'image of God'.

People are vain enough to deny that they are actually mammals. That, like mammals, they bear their young live. They nurse their young. They are covered with hair and have vertebrae. But, people are created in the 'image of God', so people are exempt from the peculiarities of evolution every other species has exhibited.

And so, this vanity extends to whatever those vain folks consider knowledge. This vanity has blinded some folks into accepting the writings of some ancient philosophers over the evidence discovered by (and here's the tricky part) the discerning and indifferent mind of man.

 

[Woyzeck]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

One of the examples we have of the transition from fish to land animals is Tiktaalik roseae. The front fins appear to have wrist bones, and the rays of the fins have been suggested to have resemblance to fingers. There are more similarities, and it's quite a fascinating creature.

 

[rdean]

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Is he so ignorant that he denies the great Southern Black Baptists? Or How about the Kennedy's, who were all supposedly devote Catholics? Aren't they Christians who believe in the all powerful God? How about Mr Obama and his family? Is rdean ready to make fun of his beliefs?

You see deano, your rant does nothing but destroy your own..............

I simply believe that it is hilarious that rdean tries so hard to make religion and politics mix.

Make them "mix"? That's retarded. One is "superstition". Guess which one.

 

[rdean]

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

One of the examples we have of the transition from fish to land animals is Tiktaalik roseae. The front fins appear to have wrist bones, and the rays of the fins have been suggested to have resemblance to fingers. There are more similarities, and it's quite a fascinating creature.

All living creatures are examples of "transition".

 

[Woyzeck]

How did fish evolve into land creatures?

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.