Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Divine Wind]

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

Those two sentences don't make sense. I agree with the first. We have lots of data on the age of the Universe:

Creationists who say the world is only 6000 years old have no physical proof that this is true. In fact, it flies in the face of facts such Doppler shift, background radiation, sedimentary layers in rocks, fossils and host of other facts. God doesn't strike me as desiring to deliberately deceive us with trickery.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I advise you to look up these experiments and take a look at them instead of just generalizing so you don't have to actually argue about them. I know, it's scary. You might have to read! Or worse, LEARN something!



Thinking coherent thoughts isn't your strong suit is it? Who the bloody balls said the lizards would evolve into birds? Evolution does not work that way!

Adaptation is an integral part of evolution It is the process by which organisms are better suited to the habitat where they live. It is, when speaking of biology, a wholly evolutionary process. It is brought upon by natural selection. For example, those with mutations that help them better to survive in a new environment (whether it's a new geographic location, or the environment has changed) will pass on their genes to the next generation.

So thank you for arguing for evolution. Thank you also for not knowing what adaptation means within modern biology.



Those with strong predators, the guppies have camouflage to evade them. Those without strong predators had more showy colors to attract females. The camouflage/attraction tradeoff is actually something many animals go through. Some even prefer to not use camouflage and just go with what attracts females (and predators).

I'm not sure what you're asking or how it pertains to evolution though. Are you asking why other animals didn't evolve similarly?

Evolutionists make the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. Lizards, reptiles, not much difference wouldn't you say? But I understand arguing semantics is all you really have.

You asked if they would turn into birds. Evolution does not state those lizards on that island would turn into birds.

Not reading a thing someone says and then shoving words in their mouth seems to be all you have.



Ah once again the old "I can't actually reply so I'll just continue talking" strategy. You really want everyone to know how much you don't know about evolution don't you?



What makes them "variations" and not evolution? Because you said so?



Yeah they can. New information can enter a gene pool. If you looked at the experiment of Richard Lenski as I suggested you would know this.

Adaptation, micro-evolution is not evolution in the sense of one species evolving into another, such as a dinasaur to a reptile then to a bird etc...

Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? That's kind of stupid to say.

At any rate, yes congratulations on stating the obvious. That is in fact what micro-evolution is. Gold star!

There is no evidence and never has been any evidence that such evolution has occured.

If you're a dumbfuck dumbass like you're intent on being, than yeah there isn't.

For those rational adults in the room there is such a thing as evolution and there is mountain of evidence to support it. You actually haven't even discounted the proof or experiments, but you refuse to accept them because they were done by scientists. Or probably, because you're full of shit.

It's not what I don't know about evolution, it's what I do know. And I do know that men didn't evolve from some ape like creature or whatever the term you idiots are using these days and I also know that dinosaurs didn't turn into reptiles which in turn turned into birds etc..etc...


Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because you think so? I disagree. The scientific method is just that, a method. It can lead to many failures, but persistence often leads to success just as it did with our findings about the Big Bang and evolution through the millienia. Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying it is impossible for God to to created the Universe 15 billion years ago as science tells us it occurred?

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

Just because you think otherwise, doesn't make it true.

Vice versa.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

Those two sentences don't make sense. I agree with the first. We have lots of data on the age of the Universe:

Creationists who say the world is only 6000 years old have no physical proof that this is true. In fact, it flies in the face of facts such Doppler shift, background radiation, sedimentary layers in rocks, fossils and host of other facts. God doesn't strike me as desiring to deliberately deceive us with trickery.

I have no idea how old the earth is and scientist can only guess.

 

[Woyzeck]

Suffice to say, contrary to creationist claims, there is quite a bit of evidence for evolution. Saying there is no evidence foe evolution, is like saying there's no evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire.

There is evidence in comparing the anatomy, and atavisms. Whales (and dolphins and porpoises) are a good example. They retain vestiges of when they were land animals, the skeletal structure of legs, their need for air and the vertical movement of their tails. They also have hair around their blowholes I believe, which is another vestigial trait from when they lived on land. Similarly, birds like ostriches have wings that aren't used for flying anymore. Atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks, old traits that come to light unexpectedly. Human tails are a prime example of this, when occasionally a baby is born with a more pronounced "tail."

You can look at the various ways species developed due to geography. There's a reason Darwin brought up the finches of the Galapagos. Similarly, the location of some fossils (or why we find some fossils why we find them) can be understood when you realize how old the fossil was, and what the geographic composition of the world was when it died.

And there's of course what we've observed. There's the experiments I've mentioned, Endler's, Lenski's. There's also the case of "super-bugs," diseases that are growing stronger against current medicine, leading us to have to develop stronger medicine. That in itself is pretty good evidence for evolution and a star example of "natural" selection. There's also an example of the lactose intolerance genes in humans. We actually only developed the genes within the past 7,000 years to digest milk. Before that by the time you matured to adulthood you lost the ability to do so.

There's a famous example of the peppered moths. That's a brilliant example of natural selection happening. The moths essentially had nice light colors. Unfortunately, they lived in England at the time of the Industrial Revolution, where their environment was being blackened by soot and pollution. The light color moths died out, leaving those who blended in with the soot to survive.

There are many more examples than this, but these few do show the validity of evolution.

 

[Divine Wind]

I have no idea how old the earth is and scientist can only guess.

Yet you stated you did not believe the science-based ages of the Universe? How can you say you have no idea about the age of the Universe then refute accepted scientific data?

I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

BTW, if you read the link about the Scientific Method, you'd know scientists don't "guess". It's a logical and methodical process.

 

[Woyzeck]

Evolutionists make the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. Lizards, reptiles, not much difference wouldn't you say? But I understand arguing semantics is all you really have.

You asked if they would turn into birds. Evolution does not state those lizards on that island would turn into birds.

Not reading a thing someone says and then shoving words in their mouth seems to be all you have.



Ah once again the old "I can't actually reply so I'll just continue talking" strategy. You really want everyone to know how much you don't know about evolution don't you?



What makes them "variations" and not evolution? Because you said so?



Yeah they can. New information can enter a gene pool. If you looked at the experiment of Richard Lenski as I suggested you would know this.



Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? That's kind of stupid to say.

At any rate, yes congratulations on stating the obvious. That is in fact what micro-evolution is. Gold star!

There is no evidence and never has been any evidence that such evolution has occured.

If you're a dumbfuck dumbass like you're intent on being, than yeah there isn't.

For those rational adults in the room there is such a thing as evolution and there is mountain of evidence to support it. You actually haven't even discounted the proof or experiments, but you refuse to accept them because they were done by scientists. Or probably, because you're full of shit.

It's not what I don't know about evolution, it's what I do know. And I do know that men didn't evolve from some ape like creature or whatever the term you idiots are using these days and I also know that dinosaurs didn't turn into reptiles which in turn turned into birds etc..etc...


Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]

Are you serious? You fucking quoted Conservapedia?

Do you know why Conservapedia doesn't like Lenski? Because it's founder requested the raw data used (as detailed in your quote) and Lenski properly told him no it was already in the paper, but would hand over the bacteria cultures to someone qualified to handle it. Amusingly enough, the "Serious Flaws" and that thing about him not giving out the data, their citations are just links to other pages on the site. Which actually describe their little 'feud' with him.

Perhaps now you'd like to actually look at the experiment yourself instead of copying and pasting of websites full of shit?

 

[Woyzeck]

Yea I think so. In one instance you have physical data, in the other you only have theories.


I think there is no way science can accurately make that calculation. So no, I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

Just because you think otherwise, doesn't make it true.

Vice versa.

Sorry I crack open a science book authored by a reputable scientist now and then. I'm pretty sure I know way more on the subject than you do.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have no idea how old the earth is and scientist can only guess.

Yet you stated you did not believe the science-based ages of the Universe? How can you say you have no idea about the age of the Universe then refute accepted scientific data?

I don't beleive in the claim as to the age of the universe.

BTW, if you read the link about the Scientific Method, you'd know scientists don't "guess". It's a logical and methodical process.

Scientific methods start out with a research question and an hypothesis, a hypothesis is what? An educated guess.

Then experiments are conducted to test the "educated guess".

After the experiments are done you collect the data and reach a conclusion. This is where you answer your research question. You make a statement of whether your data supported your hypothesis or not.

Pretty simple really.

I can refute the accepted data because the age of the universe is merely an estimate and and an esitmate is nothing more than an educated guess.

They say the universe is 15 million years old or whatever age they give and it could be right or it could be off by millions of years one way or the other. It'ss not really something would say with any degree of certainty but the scientist seem to be resolute in the "estimate".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You asked if they would turn into birds. Evolution does not state those lizards on that island would turn into birds.

Not reading a thing someone says and then shoving words in their mouth seems to be all you have.



Ah once again the old "I can't actually reply so I'll just continue talking" strategy. You really want everyone to know how much you don't know about evolution don't you?



What makes them "variations" and not evolution? Because you said so?



Yeah they can. New information can enter a gene pool. If you looked at the experiment of Richard Lenski as I suggested you would know this.



Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? That's kind of stupid to say.

At any rate, yes congratulations on stating the obvious. That is in fact what micro-evolution is. Gold star!



If you're a dumbfuck dumbass like you're intent on being, than yeah there isn't.

For those rational adults in the room there is such a thing as evolution and there is mountain of evidence to support it. You actually haven't even discounted the proof or experiments, but you refuse to accept them because they were done by scientists. Or probably, because you're full of shit.

It's not what I don't know about evolution, it's what I do know. And I do know that men didn't evolve from some ape like creature or whatever the term you idiots are using these days and I also know that dinosaurs didn't turn into reptiles which in turn turned into birds etc..etc...


Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]

Are you serious? You fucking quoted Conservapedia?

Do you know why Conservapedia doesn't like Lenski? Because it's founder requested the raw data used (as detailed in your quote) and Lenski properly told him no it was already in the paper, but would hand over the bacteria cultures to someone qualified to handle it. Amusingly enough, the "Serious Flaws" and that thing about him not giving out the data, their citations are just links to other pages on the site. Which actually describe their little 'feud' with him.

Perhaps now you'd like to actually look at the experiment yourself instead of copying and pasting of websites full of shit?

Well you folks keep citing wikipedia, not much difference in my book.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just because you think otherwise, doesn't make it true.

Vice versa.

Sorry I crack open a science book authored by a reputable scientist now and then. I'm pretty sure I know way more on the subject than you do.

Like you're the only that ever cracked a book.

 

[Divine Wind]

They say the universe is 15 million years old or whatever age they give and it could be right or it could be off by millions of years one way or the other. It'ss not really something would say with any degree of certainty but the scientist seem to be resolute in the "estimate".

Actually, the figure is closer to 15 Billion. Yes, due to the limitations of our instruments, the actual age could be off by a few million years.

Does that mean off so far that it could be 6000 years? No. The world is definitely older than 6000 years as some want to say using only the Bible as their proof.

 

[Woyzeck]

It's not what I don't know about evolution, it's what I do know. And I do know that men didn't evolve from some ape like creature or whatever the term you idiots are using these days and I also know that dinosaurs didn't turn into reptiles which in turn turned into birds etc..etc...


Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]

Are you serious? You fucking quoted Conservapedia?

Do you know why Conservapedia doesn't like Lenski? Because it's founder requested the raw data used (as detailed in your quote) and Lenski properly told him no it was already in the paper, but would hand over the bacteria cultures to someone qualified to handle it. Amusingly enough, the "Serious Flaws" and that thing about him not giving out the data, their citations are just links to other pages on the site. Which actually describe their little 'feud' with him.

Perhaps now you'd like to actually look at the experiment yourself instead of copying and pasting of websites full of shit?

Well you folks keep citing wikipedia, not much difference in my book.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They say the universe is 15 million years old or whatever age they give and it could be right or it could be off by millions of years one way or the other. It'ss not really something would say with any degree of certainty but the scientist seem to be resolute in the "estimate".

Actually, the figure is closer to 15 Billion. Yes, due to the limitations of our instruments, the actual age could be off by a few million years.

Does that mean off so far that it could be 6000 years? No. The world is definitely older than 6000 years as some want to say using only the Bible as their proof.

Billion, million still just a guess.

I have no idea how old the earth is, the bible gives no indication so it's really silly to use that as a means. But the scientist can only guess and who knows how far off the mark they are.

Well it's been fun but I gotta go feed my horses before they evolve into giraffes and start eating the leaves off my pecan tree.

Adios!

 

[Woyzeck]

Vice versa.

Sorry I crack open a science book authored by a reputable scientist now and then. I'm pretty sure I know way more on the subject than you do.

Like you're the only that ever cracked a book.

Between the two of us? I don't think you've cracked open a science book in quite some time, if you humorous thoughts on biology are any indication.

I still strongly urge you to go to your local library and get a book from the biology section.

 

[Divine Wind]

Billion, million still just a guess.

I have no idea how old the earth is, the bible gives no indication so it's really silly to use that as a means. But the scientist can only guess and who knows how far off the mark they are.

Well it's been fun but I gotta go feed my horses before they evolve into giraffes and start eating the leaves off my pecan tree.

So, by your logic, it's just a guess that when you breed your horses, you won't get cows in the Spring? That when you plant alfalfa, that it won't come up daisies instead?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sorry I crack open a science book authored by a reputable scientist now and then. I'm pretty sure I know way more on the subject than you do.

Like you're the only that ever cracked a book.

Between the two of us? I don't think you've cracked open a science book in quite some time, if you humorous thoughts on biology are any indication.

I still strongly urge you to go to your local library and get a book from the biology section.

I know enough about biology.


It's funny, when evolutionist and those that have faith in them are completely shot out of the saddle on their theories, they keep grabbing for rein.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Billion, million still just a guess.

I have no idea how old the earth is, the bible gives no indication so it's really silly to use that as a means. But the scientist can only guess and who knows how far off the mark they are.

Well it's been fun but I gotta go feed my horses before they evolve into giraffes and start eating the leaves off my pecan tree.

So, by your logic, it's just a guess that when you breed your horses, you won't get cows in the Spring? That when you plant alfalfa, that it won't come up daisies instead?

Non sequitur.

 

[hipeter924]

Creationism will always lose, evolution will always have the money and the funding; and if not most scientists will just move to China.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Creationism will always lose, evolution will always have the money and the funding; and if not most scientists will just move to China.

I didn't know it was a competition.