Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[PoliticalChic]

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?

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.

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?

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]

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.

How did the first cells "evolve"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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]

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]

How did awareness "evolve" from inorganic molecules

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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]

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?

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.

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]

I would prefer a thread on how God was created.

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


...now stop your nonsense.

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]

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?

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.

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.

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]

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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.

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

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.