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

[Youwerecreated]

You know about DNA and Genes?

Punnett square - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a gander.

You don't know your theory ? here i will help you. mutations+natural selection+large amounts of time= Neo Darwinism.

No.

There are gene combinations and permutations that give us organisms with different attributes.

It's easy to see.

Some people have blue eyes. Some have brown. Some have green.

Those are not "mutations".

It's the same with short people, tall people..and a myriad of different features.

Gosh..

Do you understand where DNA ,traits, and genes come from ?

 

[Caroljo]

As with every election and especially a presidential election, all candidates are asked their thoughts on evolution. I believe the liberal MSM passed on asking that question to Obama (I wonder why?) but anyway, Rick Perry was asked the question and he gave a lengthy answer. How do you think his response was?


Rick Perry Answers the Dreaded "Evolution" Question - Evolution News & Views
His Answer:

"There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place. Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that. I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."



Will his evangelical base accept this answer as good enough?

Here is another source;
PERRY SEES "HOLES" IN "THEORY" OF EVOLUTION

I don't know what it is going to take to get our GOP candidates off of the social and religious issues, They have got to know by now, that even answering a question like that will be used as ammunition against them. I am a Christian, but as a politician, you need to keep religion, social issues out of your talk- it's the economy stupid.

No, a real Christian would not hide the fact that he/she believes in God! God puts our leaders in their place, yes that even means God put Obama where he is now ... if it's in Gods will that Perry becomes president, then he will. I'm hoping God tells us some day why he wanted obama as president! That might be my first question to Him ! Lol!

 

[JoeB131]

Incidently, I'm an agnostic and am horrified that a sizable portion of the population thinks the dinosaurs aren't around because Noah couldn't fit them on the ark. But please, libs, this is not a winning issue for you guys. This is one of those issues where you need to run to the courts and keep getting the judges to impose your views on everyone else.

Impose our views?

The Constitution makes it clear that government is not here to support religion.

You are free to worship as you wish..but science is science. And when you start mudding science with religion you create a problem.

That's why people need to be reminded that it isn't kosher to do so.

So, when the people of a district vote to allow BOTH sides of the issue to be taught, with NO MENTION of God or any religion at all, you guys still go running off to the courts and spend millions of dollars to keep teachers in MooseJaw, KS from teaching kids that maybe nature has a design to it?

NOOOOOOO. They might start thinking there might be a God. We can't have that! We need to push an atheist agenda.

Here's an idea. Get government out of education, because they only fuck it up, anyway, and let communities form their own schools.

 

[IndependntLogic]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

Some people reconcile being Christian and science. Some don't. But putting the truth out there isn't making fun of anyone's faith. Unless they think it is. Religion and science, polar opposites.

Religion is "belief without evidence".

Science is "evidence based".

If some take comfort believing in "magical entities", so be it. But without proof, it's unfair to expect other to "respect" beliefs that are shoved in our faces. How would they like it if I tried to put up "Moon Signs" because I believed the inside the Moon is made from "soft gooey cheese"? No one can prove it isn't. To me, supernatural beliefs are "on that level" because they have no proof.

You know, there are people who believe in life on other planets. And they shove those beliefs in the faces of others as much as religion. I really don't care. Let them believe what they want.

btw, you tell me who is doing all this darn shoving and how, and I'll go smack em for ya!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Didn't mean to scare him away i was just gonna correct what he was saying. Besides i have had too many of these debates i am getting bored with them.

Carry on, i will just put my two scents in when they try to pass something off as fact,when that is not the case.

 

[Shogun]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

The difference, of course, being that WE have evidence while your kind have....

.... uh... the same kind of faith that causes people to pray for the flash healing of broken bones.

 

[Shogun]

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

hey, BRO. Jesus can dig out anything he wants in, like, two seconds, BRO.

 

[Shogun]

Strange that the only science in the thread comes from the creation side.

The evolutionist...not so much.

My belief in God comes from personal experience. I wasn't always a Christian, there was a time I also believed that God was a myth. But I saw the light, almost literally, and I feel a connection with God, I see and feel His hand at work in my life, in nature and in the world.

You all believe evolution as fact because you've been told it is true.

Do some research like I have, and you'll see the holes.

Now I have some work to do, but I'll be back later.

Thank god there are no holes in the myth of Christianity! Lord knows how consistant your standards would have to be...

Trinity versus Oneness

 

[Shogun]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

It's funny to see you people only be able to recite a book and believe what you reite is fact ,and don't know enough about the theory to defend it.

Up to the point at which you posted this punchline input your side has been trounced left and right. I'm betting that you didn't bother to read through the thread.

I guess you just had FAITH that it would turn out the way you thought.

 

[Shogun]

Some people reconcile being Christian and science. Some don't. But putting the truth out there isn't making fun of anyone's faith. Unless they think it is. Religion and science, polar opposites.

Religion is "belief without evidence".

Science is "evidence based".

If some take comfort believing in "magical entities", so be it. But without proof, it's unfair to expect other to "respect" beliefs that are shoved in our faces. How would they like it if I tried to put up "Moon Signs" because I believed the inside the Moon is made from "soft gooey cheese"? No one can prove it isn't. To me, supernatural beliefs are "on that level" because they have no proof.

You can only reconcile Christianity and science if you accept the premise that the Bible is a story book, not a science book.

According to who ?

According to WHOM, you fucking scholar.

 

[Shogun]

Evolution.

And your definition of evolution is incorrect.



Mutation is one factor..it isn't the whole story.

Care to elaborate on the others ?

You know about DNA and Genes?

Punnett square - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a gander.

DNA isn't real! Everyone knows that humans are constructed from DUST!!

IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!

 

[Shogun]

Say, can one of you dogma junkies tell me just how much faith it takes to turn this glass of water into a nice pinot?



without any of that CRAZY science shit?

 

[manifold]

Evolution is a theory supported by ample facts.

Creationism is a fantasy supported by superstition.

Fact, not opinion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can only reconcile Christianity and science if you accept the premise that the Bible is a story book, not a science book.

According to who ?

According to WHOM, you fucking scholar.

Oh we have a scholar here that needs to use the F word ,very impressive. How many monkeys did it take to make a human ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Say, can one of you dogma junkies tell me just how much faith it takes to turn this glass of water into a nice pinot?



without any of that CRAZY science shit?

Can you name one form of communication,language,sign language ,code,where intelligence was not needed ? This should be easy for you my scholarly friend.

 

[Lokiate]

As with every election and especially a presidential election, all candidates are asked their thoughts on evolution. I believe the liberal MSM passed on asking that question to Obama (I wonder why?) but anyway, Rick Perry was asked the question and he gave a lengthy answer. How do you think his response was?


Rick Perry Answers the Dreaded "Evolution" Question - Evolution News & Views
His Answer:

"There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place. Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that. I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."



Will his evangelical base accept this answer as good enough?

Here is another source;
PERRY SEES "HOLES" IN "THEORY" OF EVOLUTION

Rick Perry is a shit Governor, and the only reason I would want him to stay in Texas is so he doesn't spread his bullshit throughout the entire nation. He only believes in what sounds good to his voter base, but he should have cut back on the rhetoric. Especially the 'evolution having holes' part. He'll lose his moderate base. He must think he's still in Austin.

Is that Danzig in your avatar?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfD7agP1yxw]Danzig getting knocked out - YouTube[/ame]



Sorry..couldn't help it.

Yes, and it's cool. Danzig is an asshole, but I do like his music.

 

[rdean]

You have to understand that to liberal reporters, questioning the theory of evolution is tantamount to questioning that the world is round.

They also want to imply that by expressing doubts about evolution, your educational policy will then be similar to the narrow-minded authorities who fined John Scopes for teaching evolution (thus, making you anti-science).

Considering that only a measly 6% of scientists are Republican, I suspect those that disagree with the Theory of Evolution are ALL Republican scientists. Hilarious.

Republican Scientist. It's what we call an "Oxymoron".

What the hell is your point? 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God too. More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God

All you have is hatred and contempt. If it weren't directed at Christians, who happen to make up around 78% of Americans This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian, you would be universally called a bigot. But since it is you are only called a bigot by those intellectually honest enough to say so.

It depends on how the question is phrased. Ask people if they believe in "God" and they will say yes because they have been indoctrinated. Ask how many have been touched by a ghost, had a mystical experience, believe in ghosts, have had a "supernatural" experience, believe in "fortunetelling and so on and the numbers aren't nearly so high. Ask them to describe "God" and you will get everything from the traditional man in a wizard's dress to a force of nature and everything in between.

 

[Missourian]

We're talking about gene mutations, each of which are accidental and slightly (or dramatically) modify the genetic instructions for the organism. Most gene mutations are harmful for the next generation, but occasionally a mutation turns out to give better instructions than that of the predecessor. These are the ones who tend to survive and reproduce. Of course, for all we know, the lizard born with the best instructions evah was randomly scooped up by a bird and eaten in it's infancy.

Evolution is random, but which mutations survive is not.

I totally agree with that explanation.

Now answer part 2...This is from an earlier post.

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Sallow's response was "why do they need to be simultaneous?".

So I explained what you explained above...for natural selection to function, the mutation (or gene recombination or gene flow)...the change must produce an advantage.


Sallow says "well then it's a crap shoot."


A crap shoot is not part of evolutionary theory.



and now Sallow wants to go all around the mulberry bush.


So...

Explain how natural selection works on a trait that provides no advantage whatsoever.

And if you can't do that, then explain how a creature evolves the multiple structure simultaneously to enable that light receptor to function so it does create an advantage.


To be clear, this is an open question to anyone, not just you specifically, or Sallow.

I'm not sure I follow. Not all mutations must have an advantage, they could be indifferent or even dis-advantageous if the correct environmental factors are present.

Worms haven't evolved into anything that has eyes that I know of, but I don't think that's actually what you're asking. I think what you're asking is, how do we develop eyes and the ability to interpret their signals, simultaneously? Is that right?

Lets say an early eyeless fish has 10 babies with a primitive photon receptor. 2 have the instructions to avoid light - They can't find any plankton to eat so they die. 2 have the instructions to always stay in light. They get too hot and die. 5 have no instructions at all related to the receptor, and have about the same life as their parents. Only 1 has the instructions to seek the light, but also the correct instructions to get out and cool off when his body temperature gets too high. THAT one finds shitloads of food and breeds with lots of girls, his genes get passed on.

Does that make sense? Look at how well adapted we are to our planet - It's because of billions of years of the best instructions being passed on. It doesn't mean organisms with bad or indifferent instructions will necessarily die, but those with the best instructions have the tendency to be the most prolific.

Yes, the explanation makes prefect sense...

It's the scenario that is flawed.

The eyeless fish won't have babies with a working photon receptor wired into their brains in a way they would understand.

They might be born with one tiny piece of that huge puzzle that will one day in the distant future make up that photon receptor.

This isn't like being born with an extra thumb.

That kind of mutation is possible because billions of thumbs have come before, the instructions are fully written and ready to go.

But with the photon receptor, we are starting from scratch.

So, the eyeless fish gives birth to 10 babies whose mutation is worthless without 500 other mutations that will eventually, 50,000 years in the future, become a photon receptor.

Now, since the thing is useless...natural selection doesn't proliferate the mutation throughout the species.

So what mechanism causes these useless mutations to be maintained and proliferate WITHOUT natural selection?

 

[Woyzeck]

I suggest you read the article.

Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.

But, they aren't.

Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.

This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.
​

That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.

I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.

You are evading.

How?

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

What 500,000 year theory?

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

And now you're bringing in octopuses. Convergent evolution does happen though. Wings are a good example.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

By actually accomplishing nothing. Go. Pick. Up. A. Biology. Book. Please.

CENTER]

Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

[/CENTER]

And the point of this is...? And the rebuttal is...?

 

[Woyzeck]

A fossil of a fish. that's about all you got.

You're free to beleive as you wish. Just don't say it's fact.

LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?

Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.

By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.

Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.