Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

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

Seriously?

 

[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?

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

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]

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.

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

Seriously?

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]

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.

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

Seriously?

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.

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]

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

Seriously?

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.

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

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]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Steven_R]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

Seriously?

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.

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’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 “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.

 

[Old Rocks]

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
∗
and Sara Imari Walker
†
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 first 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’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 significant 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 scientificquestioning. 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 specific and seemingly universal chiral signature - alsopresents one of the longest standing mysteries in studies of abiogenesis. It is well–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 effects will be shown to destroy any memory of a prior chiral bias,whatever its origin. Life’s chirality is interwoven with early-Earth’s environmental history; specifically, with how theenvironment influenced the prebiotic soup that led to first life

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Seriously?

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.

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’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 “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.

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

None

Not once

Not ever

 

[Flopper]

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
∗
and Sara Imari Walker
†
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 first 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’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 significant 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 scientificquestioning. 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 specific and seemingly universal chiral signature - alsopresents one of the longest standing mysteries in studies of abiogenesis. It is well–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 effects will be shown to destroy any memory of a prior chiral bias,whatever its origin. Life’s chirality is interwoven with early-Earth’s environmental history; specifically, with how theenvironment influenced the prebiotic soup that led to first life

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

"... 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]

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.

"... 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?

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

 

[Flopper]

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.

"... 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?

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

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]

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?

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.

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?

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]

"... 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?

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

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.

"....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