Expelled

[Avatar4321]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

I was debating what forum to put this under. I considered the movie section, the religion and ethics section, the science section. But in the end, I think the most appropriate section is this one.

Ben Stein's movie is focused on a very important topic. Not the creation/evolution debate, although it does center itself on that. But a far more important subject for this nation: Freedom to question.

Being a student of history, I think one of the major lessons I've learned is that when people are free to question, they are allowed to grow. I have no desire to return to the dark ages. If we allow anyone in any field to shut down discussion on any topic then we risk losing the very freedom we love and treasure.

If I can afford it, I will go see this. Not because I really care how we are created, but because I care that we are free to question it.

 

[liberalogic]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

I was debating what forum to put this under. I considered the movie section, the religion and ethics section, the science section. But in the end, I think the most appropriate section is this one.

Ben Stein's movie is focused on a very important topic. Not the creation/evolution debate, although it does center itself on that. But a far more important subject for this nation: Freedom to question.

Being a student of history, I think one of the major lessons I've learned is that when people are free to question, they are allowed to grow. I have no desire to return to the dark ages. If we allow anyone in any field to shut down discussion on any topic then we risk losing the very freedom we love and treasure.

If I can afford it, I will go see this. Not because I really care how we are created, but because I care that we are free to question it.

Of course you're free to question whatever you want...that's the beauty of America. The problem that I have with this debate is when it is attempted to be labeled as a science and placed into the classroom. When enough evidence is gathered and a theory as comprehensive as Darwin's is presented, then we'll call it science. And I highly doubt that these creation scientists do not have the resources to conduct their research...there are many people in America, including a presidential candidate, who have deep reservations about evolution.

However, I must ask: are you really questioning or are you simply trying to find evidence that supports an answer in which you already believe?

 

[Gunny]

Of course you're free to question whatever you want...that's the beauty of America. The problem that I have with this debate is when it is attempted to be labeled as a science and placed into the classroom. When enough evidence is gathered and a theory as comprehensive as Darwin's is presented, then we'll call it science. And I highly doubt that these creation scientists do not have the resources to conduct their research...there are many people in America, including a presidential candidate, who have deep reservations about evolution.

However, I must ask: are you really questioning or are you simply trying to find evidence that supports an answer in which you already believe?

I have the same problem when a theory, backed by no more real evidence being presented in a classroom as any more valid than the theory of Creation.

Let's be so kind as to define "evolution" for the purposes of this argument. Evolution as in everything that is not evolving is dead vs that creationist fairy tale Darwin concocted where Man evolved from apes. I have no problem with the former definition. The latter stinks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have the same problem when a theory, backed by no more real evidence being presented in a classroom as any more valid than the theory of Creation.

Let's be so kind as to define "evolution" for the purposes of this argument. Evolution as in everything that is not evolving is dead vs that creationist fairy tale Darwin concocted where Man evolved from apes. I have no problem with the former definition. The latter stinks.

Doesn't science class also teach the "theory" of how life supposedly sprang forth from rocks on this planet? Which if they think about it is nearly the same as how God is supposed to have created Adam, after all he used Dirt to do it, dirt comes from rocks.

Neither can be proven, both require some kind of belief in happenstance. One requires us to believe that by some cosmic lucky roll of the dice ( roll after roll really) Life magically appeared on earth. The other requires us to believe that a God did it.

And what I love is the "example" used to justify man's supposed evolution from an "ape like creature". They use the Horse. Now research that a bit and you will find that , yes indeed there is a long proven history of evolution with the horse.... BUT it was always a HORSE.

It always looked like a horse, it always acted like a horse.

Provide us with an example of one species evolving into 2 different species, and do not mean guessing, I mean a hard and fast tree of evidence clearly linking the 2 species to the previous different species.

And if you trot out single cell or simple cell creatures I am going to demand you provide said evidence with a complex creature.

 

[Gunny]

Doesn't science class also teach the "theory" of how life supposedly sprang forth from rocks on this planet? Which if they think about it is nearly the same as how God is supposed to have created Adam, after all he used Dirt to do it, dirt comes from rocks.

Neither can be proven, both require some kind of belief in happenstance. One requires us to believe that by some cosmic lucky roll of the dice ( roll after roll really) Life magically appeared on earth. The other requires us to believe that a God did it.

And what I love is the "example" used to justify man's supposed evolution from an "ape like creature". They use the Horse. Now research that a bit and you will find that , yes indeed there is a long proven history of evolution with the horse.... BUT it was always a HORSE.

It always looked like a horse, it always acted like a horse.

Provide us with an example of one species evolving into 2 different species, and do not mean guessing, I mean a hard and fast tree of evidence clearly linking the 2 species to the previous different species.

And if you trot out single cell or simple cell creatures I am going to demand you provide said evidence with a complex creature.

My favorite is the Big Bang. From absolute nothing, "something" came. Defies a basic law of science -- you cannot get something from nothing.

How many species have evolved from another and the original still exist? Man supposedly evolved from apes; yet, apes still exist.

I accept science for the most part. It's Man's way of micromanaging his own environment within the limit of Man's intellect. I don't accept science where it attempts to disprove Creation by going into the religion business itself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My favorite is the Big Bang. From absolute nothing, "something" came. Defies a basic law of science -- you cannot get something from nothing.

How many species have evolved from another and the original still exist? Man supposedly evolved from apes; yet, apes still exist.

I accept science for the most part. It's Man's way of micromanaging his own environment within the limit of Man's intellect. I don't accept science where it attempts to disprove Creation by going into the religion business itself.

No No, the latest theory is that an " ape like" creature was the father to modern apes and man.

Using the science that claims that we are all evolved from mice anyway.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)
_____________________________________________

“Creationism” is religious doctrine and not science; and the religious proselytizers need to face up to the fact. Darwin's theory of evolution has been well established on the basis of empirical evidence, and independently verified by Mendelian genetics. Indeed, we are on the threshold of harnessing the genetic code. Surely, we can sustain progress without casting aspersions on the truth. It is time that religion cease being the altar of superstition upon which knowledge and reason are sacrificed for the sake of ignorance and stupidity.

The only ignorance here is claiming that science has established something it clearly has not. Evolution inside a species, I believe is proven. Evolution where one species magically springs forth a new species is NOT proven.

 

[Gunny]

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)
_____________________________________________

“Creationism” is religious doctrine and not science; and the religious proselytizers need to face up to the fact. Darwin's theory of evolution has been well established on the basis of empirical evidence, and independently verified by Mendelian genetics. Indeed, we are on the threshold of harnessing the genetic code. Surely, we can sustain progress without casting aspersions on the truth. It is time that religion cease being the altar of superstition upon which knowledge and reason are sacrificed for the sake of ignorance and stupidity.

When you clear away the smoke and mirrors, what you call "empirical evidence" amounts to NO actual evidence. It's theory -- conjecture. Nothing more.

However, I do not contend that Creationism is science. Rather, I claim that science insofar as creation is concerned becomes religion.

Mendelian genetics factually prove nothing.

Harnessing the genetic code is irrelevent. That's Man playing Frankenstein with Man. It's within Man's intellect and based on fact and evidence and explained by science, Man's manifestation of intellect insofar as the topic is concerned.

 

[Gunny]

Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been established by proof based upon empirical evidence and verified by genetic experimentation on plants and animals, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Contrast to this are the claims of “Creationists” paraded as science under the rubric of “Intelligent Design” that is based on the assumption that life was created, which, of necessity, presumes the existence of a “Creator.” Such argument is mere speculation and inconsistent with scientific method, for it is nothing more than a presumption that is not evidence, much less proof. The same arguments and challenges to evolution advanced by the proponents of “Intelligent Design” were proved to have no support in the scientific community and ruled to be religious doctrine and not science. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To posit “Intelligent Design” as a theological explanation is one thing; but to posture it as science is unsupportable, if not outright dishonest, and only reflects discredit upon religious belief.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proven to be factual by no real evidence. You can't seem to get past that part. Again, when you get rid of the smoke and mirrors of your argument, there is no more evidence for that than there is Creation. Everything you call "proof" and/or "empirical evidence" boils down to guesswork.

Creation is overwhelmingly accepted by the Judeo/Christian community. So?

 

[Gunny]

Not proof? We can verify evolution process in speciation by hybridization in both plants and animals. What more proof do you need? Yours is the same unsupportable argument advanced by Prof. Michael Behe at the trial in Kitzmiller: when confronted with the evidence of evolution in biological systems, he simply claimed that that was not proof. Indeed, his is the "sanctuary of ignorance."

You can verify hybridization by hybridization in plants and animals. The fact that Man can arbitrarily alter genes and create an artificial evolution in no way proves a natural evolution based on Darwin's theory.

There is no evidence that proves Darwin's theory. Why it's called a "theory," and why this argument exists and has existed.

I'd say rather his is the sanctuary of an open mind while you present a willfully blind argument.

 

[Shogun]

Looks like the Crookshanks gotcha both by the short and curlies.


the flat earthers always seem to shit up when the evidence comes out. funny how evidence really is a necessary component to SCIENCE. Indeed, nothing like some good ole frantic rhetoric to overturn physical evidence!

now, if we can just figure out how copernicus was lying since no human has ever OBSERVED the earth rotating around the sun....

 

[Shogun]

When you clear away the smoke and mirrors, what you call "empirical evidence" amounts to NO actual evidence. It's theory -- conjecture. Nothing more.

However, I do not contend that Creationism is science. Rather, I claim that science insofar as creation is concerned becomes religion.

Mendelian genetics factually prove nothing.

Harnessing the genetic code is irrelevent. That's Man playing Frankenstein with Man. It's within Man's intellect and based on fact and evidence and explained by science, Man's manifestation of intellect insofar as the topic is
concerned.

Science is not a religion. No one WORSHIPS it or the ideals that it provides. There is lots of evidence. We can talk about finger bones in whale fins. We can compare the physical structure of the scale and the feather. Hell, we even have the DUCKBILLED PLATYPUS to illustrate egg laying, bill having mammals. Animal Husbandry for schrists sakes? Did god create a toy sheltie? Is the EVOLUTION from pack animal to 5 inch canine accessory NOT evidence of an evolution process? FRANKENSTEIN with man? That's as rich as the earlier claim to playing GOD with man by using medicine instead of prayer to cure ailments.

talk about smoke and mirrors. I'm ready to throw down the evidence if anyone on your side of the isle is ready to do the same in order to prove creation with evidence. Rhetoical circular logic really isn't evidence of anything other than a desire to inject dogma into the science class.

 

[Shogun]

The only ignorance here is claiming that science has established something it clearly has not. Evolution inside a species, I believe is proven. Evolution where one species magically springs forth a new species is NOT proven.

When you figure out how to live millions of years then perhaps you can see the process that you dont want to believe in. Clearly, science has aligned itself with the best that EVIDENCE has to offer. Don't blame us if the evidence for your creation myth is less handy than that of the physical world.

 

[Shogun]

My favorite is the Big Bang. From absolute nothing, "something" came. Defies a basic law of science -- you cannot get something from nothing.

How many species have evolved from another and the original still exist? Man supposedly evolved from apes; yet, apes still exist.

I accept science for the most part. It's Man's way of micromanaging his own environment within the limit of Man's intellect. I don't accept science where it attempts to disprove Creation by going into the religion business itself.

I dropped a post full of evidence FOR the big bang just last week. Where were you at then? Do you really want to skin this smokestack? We can revisit the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that i posted in favor of the big bang if YOU want to post the evidence you have for a biblical creation. Science is the polar opposite of religion. SCIENCE relies on EVIDENCE. RELIGION relies on silly little rhetorical games which makes the fact of scientific understanding easier to swallow to people who are more comforted believing that a chariot and sun god drag the sun accross the sky.


But, I'll deffinitly play this game. I'll know you are ready when you start posting PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

 

[midcan5]

I'm not sure Ben realizes it but Darwin has been questioned since he proposed his theory. Over and over again. The same cannot be said for creationism which is the substitution of belief for proof.

When the US moves away from science and into the world of belief we will have turned back the clock and will imitate the likes of extremist religious radicals everywhere. We will return to times when forces unknown controlled us and we will no longer possess the tools to say something is wrong. Germs will return to witches.

When people question evolution I wonder how they face their own biological nature and their similarity to all living things. That we possess consciousness and language makes us no better than other creatures who posses the same characteristics. I wish I could come back in 50 or 100 years to see what we have made of ourselves.

If you are interested in science check out list below.

http://www.edge.org/documents/books07_index.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Remind all us dumbies what the theory is on HOW life came to be in the first place, then provide some scientific evidence it is true.

 

[liberalogic]

Remind all us dumbies what the theory is on HOW life came to be in the first place, then provide some scientific evidence it is true.

I might be wrong and hopefully someone will correct me if this is the case, but I don't believe that the theory of evolution attempts to explain how life began, but instead seeks to trace it from its most primitive form to the human beings that we are today. If this is the case, then christians shouldn't have a problem with it because that still leaves the possibility of a divine figure to create the species that has evolved.

 

[Shogun]

Remind all us dumbies what the theory is on HOW life came to be in the first place, then provide some scientific evidence it is true.

ahhh.. did you feel it necessary to change your argument AWAY from criticism of evolution? Geee, I wonder why.


the FACT remains that science is not pompous enough to declare any theory as your alpha and omega myth without enough EVIDENCE to support such. Currently, our evidence of DNA, EVOLUTION, THE FOSSIL RECORD, GEOLOGIC TIME and ASTROPHYSICS all point at something clearly outside of your modern "chariot pulls the sun accross the sky" myth. That's the beauty of SCIENCE. It doesn't feel the need to insist more than it's own provided evidence. Scientific theories of Origin will EVOLVE (hehehehe) as new PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is provided. I know, as an observer of science, that I cannot insist that the Big Bang theory is true... You see, THIS is exactly what seperates me and science from YOU and theology. THIS is why the scientific method consists of Testing a theory instead of blindly believing a tale.

Now, that being said, if you are interested in PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that suggests the correctness of the BIG BANG theory or the THEORY OF EVOLUTION then just ask. I'm more than ready to pummel you with ASTROPHYSICS (notice the PHYSICS part of that word), Mitochondrial DNA, THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD, geologic time and, of course, any other piece of PHYSICAL evidence that dogma filled rhetoric can't touch...


Origins of life
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

How Did Life Begin?
An Interview with Andy Knoll

NOVA: What is the recipe for life?

Knoll: The recipe for life is not that complicated. There are a limited number of elements inside your body. Most of your mass is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, plus some nitrogen and phosphorous. There are a couple dozen other elements that are in there in trace amounts, but to a first approximation you're just a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Now, it turns out that the atmosphere is a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen as well, and it's not living. So the real issue here is, how do you take that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or methane in an early atmosphere) and water vapor and other sources of hydrogen—how do you take those simple, inorganic precursors and make them into the building blocks of life?

There was a famous experiment done by Stanley Miller when he was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s. Miller essentially put methane, or natural gas, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor into a beaker. That wasn't a random mixture; at the time he did the experiment, that was at least one view of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like.

Then he did a brilliant thing. He simply put an electric charge through that mixture to simulate lightning going through an early atmosphere. After sitting around for a couple of days, all of a sudden there was this brown goo all over the reaction vessel. When he analyzed what was in the vessel, rather than only having methane and ammonia, he actually had amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. In fact, he had them in just about the same proportions you would find if you looked at organic matter in a meteorite. So the chemistry that Miller was discovering in this wonderful experiment was not some improbable chemistry, but a chemistry that is widely distributed throughout our solar system.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html


How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach
Primordial soup

An often-told origin-of-life story is that complex biological compounds assembled by chance out of an organic broth on the early Earth's surface. This pre-biotic synthesis culminated in one of these bio-molecules being able to make copies of itself.

The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.

If amino acids could come together out of raw ingredients, then bigger, more complex molecules could presumably form given enough time. Biologists have devised various scenarios in which this assemblage takes place in tidal pools, near underwater volcanic vents, on the surface of clay sediments, or even in outer space.

But were the first complex molecules proteins or DNA or something else? Biologists face a chicken-and-egg problem in that proteins are needed to replicate DNA, but DNA is necessary to instruct the building of proteins.

Many researchers, therefore, think that RNA—a cousin of DNA—may have been the first complex molecule on which life was based. RNA carries genetic information like DNA, but it can also direct chemical reactions as proteins do.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060609_life_origin.html


Origin of life: the search for the first genetic material
How did life originate on Earth? Until now, there have only been theories to answer this question. One of the fundamental steps leading to living organisms is the development of molecules that can replicate and multiply themselves—the first genetic material. A team led by Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy and Albert Eschenmoser at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, is researching how this molecule might have looked.
Our own genetic material is DNA. Its backbone is made of sugar and phosphate building blocks. Like a strand of pearls, the four “letters” of the genetic code are arranged along this backbone. Two complementary strands of DNA form a double helix because the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G) form specific pairs with the pyrimidine bases thymine (T) and cytosine (C), attaching to each other through two or three docking sites.

This type of structure could also be the basis for the first genetic material. However, it is doubtful that its backbone consisted of sugar and phosphate; it may have consisted of peptide-like building blocks. Amino acids, from which peptides are made, were already present in the “primordial soup”. However, the bases may also have looked different in their primitive form.
http://www.physorg.com/news82979065.html


Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution
Recent DNA studies of several populations suggest that modern humans:

* originated in Africa
* appeared in one founding population
* evolved around 170,000 years ago
* migrated to other parts of the world to replace other hominids
Mitochondrial DNA

DNA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell's mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees.

* Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs.
* They are present in large numbers in each cell, so fewer samples is required.
* They have a higher rate of substitution (mutations where one nucleotide is replaced with another) than nuclear DNA making it easier to resolve differences between closely related individuals.
* They are inherited only from the mother, which allows tracing of a direct genetic line.
* They don't recombine. The process of recombination in nuclear DNA (except the Y chromosome) mixes sections of DNA from the mother and the father creating a garbled genetic history.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Images Of Evolution: DNA Leaves Fossils In The Dust
For new clues on evolution, DNA leaves fossils in the dust. Researchers from the Institut Curie in Paris are using new methods of species comparison to track the history of human chromosomes over a 130 million-year period of mammalian evolution, as reported in this month's issue of Genome Research.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000516071936.htm

Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila
A large fraction of eukaryotic genomes consists of DNA that is not translated into protein sequence, and little is known about its functional significance. Here I show that several classes of non-coding DNA in Drosophila are evolving considerably slower than synonymous sites, and yet show an excess of between-species divergence relative to polymorphism when compared with synonymous sites. The former is a hallmark of selective constraint, but the latter is a signature of adaptive evolution, resembling general patterns of protein evolution in Drosophila1, 2. I estimate that about 40–70% of nucleotides in intergenic regions, untranslated portions of mature mRNAs (UTRs) and most intronic DNA are evolutionarily constrained relative to synonymous sites. However, I also use an extension to the McDonald–Kreitman test3 to show that a substantial fraction of the nucleotide divergence in these regions was driven to fixation by positive selection (about 20% for most intronic and intergenic DNA, and 60% for UTRs). On the basis of these observations, I suggest that a large fraction of the non-translated genome is functionally important and subject to both purifying selection and adaptive evolution. These results imply that, although positive selection is clearly an important facet of protein evolution, adaptive changes to non-coding DNA might have been considerably more common in the evolution of D. melanogaster.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7062/abs/nature04107.html


DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Evolution

Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell.
Skip to next paragraph
Rui Vieira/Associated Press

Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell.

About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/science/06cats.html


DNA traces evolution of extinct sabertooths and the American cheetah-like cat
By performing sequence analysis of ancient DNA, a team of researchers has obtained data that help clarify our view of the evolutionary relationships shared by the large predatory cats that once roamed the prehistoric New World.

The work is reported in the August 9 issue of Current Biology by Ross Barnett of the University of Oxford and a team of researchers from Britain, the United States, Sweden, and Australia.

Toward the end of the last Ice Age, around 13,000 years ago, North and South America were home to a variety of large cats such as the sabertooths (Smilodon and Homotherium) and other now-extinct species known as the American lion-like cat (Panthera atrox) and cheetah-like cat (Miracinonyx trumani). Of these big cats, only the puma (Puma concolor) and jaguar (Panthera onca) survive in the Americas today.

The evolutionary history of the extinct American cats has been closely studied by palaeontologists, but it has been difficult to determine the exact relationships of several groups. In the work reported this week, researchers created an updated family tree for the ancient cats by comparing ancient DNA extracted from the preserved bones of the two sabertooths (a Smilodon specimen from Patagonia and a Homotherium specimen from the Yukon region) and the American cheetah-like cat (a Miracinonyx specimen from the state of Wyoming) with DNA from modern felid (cat-family) and carnivore species. The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species.

The phylogenetic tree drawn from the new data also shows that the American cheetah-like cat is genetically most closely related to the puma, rather than to the true African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Miracinonyx and the true cheetah Acinonyx show remarkable morphological similarity, including elongated limbs and enlarged nares, but the genet
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology...ths-and-the-American-cheetah-like-cat-1548-1/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words, no one can explain how nor recreate how science claims we began. Thanks for playing.

As for Evolution no one can show how one species becomes magicaly another totally different one. Thanks for playing there too. Ohh and now trot out how plants do it when forced by man.

 

[Shogun]

That's the thing, dude.. SCIENCE will admit as much... Will your dogma dare to act in kind?


THAT, sir, is the difference between science and dogma. Read about Francis Bacon sometime. I notice that you don't offer your OWN physical evidence for your OWN creation opinion... Why is that, RGS? Quiver empty? Talking shit on evolution seem to be all you require?

Praytell, show me who you use the scientific method to prove creation better than the evidence that supports evolution and the big bang.


or, just retreat.. whatever is clever on this fine xmas eve.


Merry CHISTmas, RGS.