Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[NYcarbineer]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

Study evolution.

Worship creationism.

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

Works for me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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.

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?

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]

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]

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

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

There is no evidence of one species changing into another.

Get it?

Let me google that for you: Observed Speciation

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists - Wired Science
Speciation in real time

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no evidence of one species changing into another.

Get it?

Let me google that for you: Observed Speciation

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists - Wired Science
Speciation in real time

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]

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.

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]

There is no evidence of one species changing into another.

Get it?

Let me google that for you: Observed Speciation

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists - Wired Science
Speciation in real time

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?

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]

Let me google that for you: Observed Speciation

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists - Wired Science
Speciation in real time

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?

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

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]

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]

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.

"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"?