- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,338
- 18,631
- 1,915
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pew Poll: 6% of Scientists are Republicans
- Thread starter Modbert
- Start date
R
rdean
Guest
What do you think Ernst Chain, would have said if he lived a few years longer and "observed" the fact that microbes "evolve" and develop immunity to penicillin? Wow, it's just too bad. Of course, when people are indoctrinated into mysticism at a very early age, many times, they simply can't over come that indoctrination. No matter how much evidence, they will refuse to see it.
You said: Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.
That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation. So he guessed. That's why it's called a "theory". Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work. But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together. Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.
I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.
You said: Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.
That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation. So he guessed. That's why it's called a "theory". Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work. But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together. Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.
I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
What do you think Ernst Chain, would have said if he lived a few years longer and "observed" the fact that microbes "evolve" and develop immunity to penicillin? Wow, it's just too bad. Of course, when people are indoctrinated into mysticism at a very early age, many times, they simply can't over come that indoctrination. No matter how much evidence, they will refuse to see it.
I think Ernst Chain would probably have said the same thing that Selman Waksman, creator of streptomycin to treat tuberculosis, said: "The concept of the 'struggle for existence' has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic substance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge . . . All the discussion of a 'struggle for existence', in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual."
He didn't think evolution was necessary to his work, either.
Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation. Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them. They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria. They didn't become a different species.
You said: Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.
That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation. So he guessed. That's why it's called a "theory". Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work. But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together. Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.
Sorry, but you're wrong, on several counts. First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess". Darwin DID guess, and he was dead wrong. That is one of the many reasons why I and others view his work as highly-suspect and unproven theory instead of settled science. Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it. It directly contradicted it.
Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
Darwin's view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
As you can see, Mendel's theory was directly contradictory to Darwin's. This is why Mendel's work, published in 1866, was totally ignored by Darwinists for more than thirty years. William Bateson, one of the scientists who "rediscovered" Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that the cause for this lack of interest was "unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines . . . The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended." I guess he wasn't impressed with Darwin, either.
By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology. I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.
What classes did your school teach? "Puerile Insults 101"? Instead of telling me over and over how stupid and wrong I am, how about you present some proof? As for me being "mystical and superstitious", I hope you notice that YOU are the only one talking about it, and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
noose4
Senior Member
6% of Scientists are Republicans.
How unsurprising
YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans
Further stats:
55% Democrat
6% Republican
39% Independent
52% Liberal
14% Very Liberal
9% Conservative
shocking!!!! i bet 80% of those who believe the earth is 6000 years old fall in on the republican side though.
R
rdean
Guest
Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation. Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them. They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria. They didn't become a different species.
-----Adaptation - what is it? Evolution. Natural selection. Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"? Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge. We can plainly see that today. Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule. Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth". We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split". Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf. Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines.
First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".
---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess". He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands. As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation. And a very good guess it was.
Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it. It directly contradicted it.
-----------Only the method, not the theory itself.
Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
-----------From one generation to the next. Look at dogs. You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller. Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together. You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua. We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.
Darwin's view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
-----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes. Almost like paint. A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle. That is where Mendel proved him wrong.
By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology. I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
----------Because they truly were brought together. Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils. We know when species separated from a common ancestor.
If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
------------That is your "mule headed" assumption. The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
-------------Some of what you talked was science. But twisted. You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs". It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.
-----Adaptation - what is it? Evolution. Natural selection. Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"? Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge. We can plainly see that today. Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule. Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth". We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split". Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf. Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines.
First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".
---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess". He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands. As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation. And a very good guess it was.
Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it. It directly contradicted it.
-----------Only the method, not the theory itself.
Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
-----------From one generation to the next. Look at dogs. You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller. Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together. You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua. We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.
Darwin's view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
-----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes. Almost like paint. A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle. That is where Mendel proved him wrong.
By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology. I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
----------Because they truly were brought together. Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils. We know when species separated from a common ancestor.
If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
------------That is your "mule headed" assumption. The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
-------------Some of what you talked was science. But twisted. You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs". It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation. Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them. They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria. They didn't become a different species.
-----Adaptation - what is it? Evolution. Natural selection.
Sorry, but that's a dodge, and a lame one at that. In advertising, it's called "bait and switch": I show you one thing that's completely uncontroversial and never, EVER been disputed (adaption) and then go, "Ta DAHHH!" and blur it with something completely different (evolution). Change within a species does not in any way prove change between species, and it's not only unscientific, but dishonest, to pretend that it does.
Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"?
I'm sorry, did you SERIOUSLY just ask me how microbiologists know that tuberculosis bacteria are tuberculosis bacteria? Seriously?!
And what does "asexual" have to do with knowing what species of bacteria they are?
Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge.
Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening. All there is are guesses, a la Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.
And converge? When did THAT become evolutionary theory, that species were coming together and joining, as opposed to branching out? What the hell have you been smoking?
We can plainly see that today. Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule.
Ligers, tigons, and mules are not examples of evolution in the wild, you pinhead. They're deliberate human-created crossbreeds of animals from the same genus. Can you please tell me how human interference "proves" random natural evolution?
Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth". We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split". Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf. Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines.
Dogs from wolves are ALSO examples of deliberate human breeding. And you can't prove jack about evolution from fossil records. You're just talking out of your ass right now.
First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".
---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess". He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands.
No, as a matter of fact, he couldn't, and it WAS wild-assed guesses, because it was WRONG. That's a dead giveaway of a wild-assed guess.
As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation. And a very good guess it was.
No, it WASN'T a good guess, because it was WRONG. That is also a hallmark of a bad guess, being wrong.
And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution. It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last.
Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it. It directly contradicted it.
-----------Only the method, not the theory itself.
The method WAS the theory, you dink. What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway? Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time? Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?
Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
-----------From one generation to the next. Look at dogs. You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller. Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together. You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua. We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.
One more time, halfwit. Deliberate, intelligent interference by humans - ie. breeding dogs - is not evidence of evolution. You might consider it an example of intelligent design, since that's essentially what it is, but it absolutely in no way bears any relation to evolutionary theory, unless your evolutionary theory happens to be some greater intellect breeding Earth's species like pedigreed dogs.
Oh, by the way. When you breed dogs, you DO see change from generation to generation. You have to, since dog breeders don't live for centuries.
Darwin's view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
-----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes. Almost like paint. A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle. That is where Mendel proved him wrong.
Insofar as Darwin's theory of evolution WAS "how characteristics were passed", I did, indeed, just describe his theory.
And no, genetics don't work like paint at all. Did you even take biology in high school?
By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology. I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
----------Because they truly were brought together. Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils. We know when species separated from a common ancestor.
No, they were not "brought together". Darwinists just quietly plagiarized Mendel's work and claimed it was "always" part of Darwinism.
And you know absolutely bupkis about fossils.
If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
------------That is your "mule headed" assumption. The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
No, it's a fact. Biologists made huge strides in the field before Darwin was ever born, and throughout his entire life and through much of the twentieth century without ever paying any attention to his work. Darwinism cannot be the core of something that began and thrived without it.
The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic poseurs like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it. It's sad to watch.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
-------------Some of what you talked was science. But twisted. You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs". It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.
I'll tell you what. When you can pull your head out long enough to make a cogent scientific argument, THEN you may presume to tell me what I "know" is at my core. Until such time as your OWN beliefs aren't clear as mud to you, you have no room to say anything about my "mysticism". What's clear to ME is that my belief system has served me better in the realm of being educated and informed than your so-called "scientific" approach.
R
rdean
Guest
Cecilie1200
Sorry, but that's a dodge, and a lame one at that. In advertising, it's called "bait and switch": I show you one thing that's completely uncontroversial and never, EVER been disputed (adaption) and then go, "Ta DAHHH!" and blur it with something completely different (evolution). Change within a species does not in any way prove change between species, and it's not only unscientific, but dishonest, to pretend that it does.
--------No, it's not a dodge. At least you admit there IS change. Take two groups, separate them and come back a million years later and see if they are still the same species. Of course you can't wait around a million years. You can't actually view plate tectonics. Do you believe it's true? Does it happen? Isn't it "just a theory"?
Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening. All there is are guesses, a la Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.
------------The problem is that you still think in terms of 1977. The understanding of evolution has grown way beyond a single subject in some colleges. But speaking of fossils, I have one comment to make about that. Scientists have discovered that at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the fossils are simple and as they move up through the rock layers, they become more complex. The age of the Grand Canyon is pretty much undisputed to be around two billion years old, unless you believe that it was the result of "Noah's Flood". 'scuz me, I had to stop for a second and stop laughing. Now, if it was "created" as a result of "Noah's Flood", then how did all the primitive and simple fossils end up on the bottom and not mixed all together? 'scuz me, I had to stop laughing again.
And converge? When did THAT become evolutionary theory, that species were coming together and joining, as opposed to branching out? What the hell have you been smoking?
--------converge? Did I say that? I didn't see it anywhere.
Ligers, tigons, and mules are not examples of evolution in the wild, you pinhead. They're deliberate human-created crossbreeds of animals from the same genus. Can you please tell me how human interference "proves" random natural evolution?
-----------But the fact that they can breed doesn't prove that they had a recent shared ancestor? Listening to you, you get the impressions that all the animals that ever were just sprang up exactly they way they are now. Every species of feline, every species of canine, every species of primate. Wait a second. You do believe that, don't you? Careful, someone might suspect you had a closed mind with a hidden agenda.
Dogs from wolves are ALSO examples of deliberate human breeding. And you can't prove jack about evolution from fossil records. You're just talking out of your ass right now.
--------Actually, you can prove that at one time, Kangaroos were carnivorous and had large canines they probably used to stab their victims. It's in the fossil record. At one time they were carnivorous, millions of years later, they weren't. Unless, you, with your super detective skills could come up with a better explanation.
And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution. It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last.
--------Didn't even last? All the different types of finches with wildly varying beaks? Because the food sources change, the animals adapted to attain that food. "Natural Selection"?
The method WAS the theory, you dink. What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway? Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time? Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?
----------That things change over time? Well, yea. 'scuz me. I had stop laughing again.
One more time, halfwit. Deliberate, intelligent interference by humans - ie. breeding dogs - is not evidence of evolution. You might consider it an example of intelligent design, since that's essentially what it is, but it absolutely in no way bears any relation to evolutionary theory, unless your evolutionary theory happens to be some greater intellect breeding Earth's species like pedigreed dogs.
-------Well, actually, whether it's changes in nature bringing out certain biological aspects or people doing it on purpose, what it does demonstrate is the ability to adapt. What ever the agent of change, change happens.
Oh, by the way. When you breed dogs, you DO see change from generation to generation. You have to, since dog breeders don't live for centuries.
--------No, but dogs can start breeding after barely 18 months. That means many generations in a single human lifetime. That wasn't "obvious"? By the way, take a look at us. Since the human genome project, it's estimated that some peoples genes can be reviewed going back 150,000 years. This is how we know we all came from Africa. As groups split off and when their own way, it is verified in the fossil record and by the age of the rocks the fossils show up in. Unless that's all a lie too?
And no, genetics don't work like paint at all. Did you even take biology in high school?
-------------Of course I took biology. I know that inherited characteristics don't work like paint, ah, but Darwin didn't know that. That was "his" theory. You so desperately wanted an "aha" moment, you subscribed that theory to me. I never said that. I said Darwin said that and Mendel disproved it.
No, they were not "brought together". Darwinists just quietly plagiarized Mendel's work and claimed it was "always" part of Darwinism.
-------------That is just not true. Modern evolutionary theory is, in part natural selection. Because of Natural selection, species change over time. lots of time. But there is also genetic drift, gene flow (inter breeding), mutation and recombination. You see, the best of both theories became on unified theory that is considered the Modern Theory of Evolution.
And you know absolutely bupkis about fossils.
-------------How would you know that? Do you even know what a fossil is? Some religious people believe God put bones in the ground so dogs have something to dig up. Others believe that God put bones in the ground to show us what creatures on other planets look like. Are those your beliefs?
The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic poseurs like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it. It's sad to watch.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
---------If what you are talking is science, then it has a new synonym - delusion. I have to admit, you had me laughing many times. What was especially fun was that I didn't have to look hardly anything up. Your arguments were so easy to refute even based on what little I know. I would love to watch you talk to a real biologist or an actual medical doctor and tell them your "theories" and "proofs". Laughter is great medicine and when it comes to science and humor, you are a pharmacist.
Sorry, but that's a dodge, and a lame one at that. In advertising, it's called "bait and switch": I show you one thing that's completely uncontroversial and never, EVER been disputed (adaption) and then go, "Ta DAHHH!" and blur it with something completely different (evolution). Change within a species does not in any way prove change between species, and it's not only unscientific, but dishonest, to pretend that it does.
--------No, it's not a dodge. At least you admit there IS change. Take two groups, separate them and come back a million years later and see if they are still the same species. Of course you can't wait around a million years. You can't actually view plate tectonics. Do you believe it's true? Does it happen? Isn't it "just a theory"?
Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening. All there is are guesses, a la Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.
------------The problem is that you still think in terms of 1977. The understanding of evolution has grown way beyond a single subject in some colleges. But speaking of fossils, I have one comment to make about that. Scientists have discovered that at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the fossils are simple and as they move up through the rock layers, they become more complex. The age of the Grand Canyon is pretty much undisputed to be around two billion years old, unless you believe that it was the result of "Noah's Flood". 'scuz me, I had to stop for a second and stop laughing. Now, if it was "created" as a result of "Noah's Flood", then how did all the primitive and simple fossils end up on the bottom and not mixed all together? 'scuz me, I had to stop laughing again.
And converge? When did THAT become evolutionary theory, that species were coming together and joining, as opposed to branching out? What the hell have you been smoking?
--------converge? Did I say that? I didn't see it anywhere.
Ligers, tigons, and mules are not examples of evolution in the wild, you pinhead. They're deliberate human-created crossbreeds of animals from the same genus. Can you please tell me how human interference "proves" random natural evolution?
-----------But the fact that they can breed doesn't prove that they had a recent shared ancestor? Listening to you, you get the impressions that all the animals that ever were just sprang up exactly they way they are now. Every species of feline, every species of canine, every species of primate. Wait a second. You do believe that, don't you? Careful, someone might suspect you had a closed mind with a hidden agenda.
Dogs from wolves are ALSO examples of deliberate human breeding. And you can't prove jack about evolution from fossil records. You're just talking out of your ass right now.
--------Actually, you can prove that at one time, Kangaroos were carnivorous and had large canines they probably used to stab their victims. It's in the fossil record. At one time they were carnivorous, millions of years later, they weren't. Unless, you, with your super detective skills could come up with a better explanation.
And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution. It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last.
--------Didn't even last? All the different types of finches with wildly varying beaks? Because the food sources change, the animals adapted to attain that food. "Natural Selection"?
The method WAS the theory, you dink. What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway? Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time? Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?
----------That things change over time? Well, yea. 'scuz me. I had stop laughing again.
One more time, halfwit. Deliberate, intelligent interference by humans - ie. breeding dogs - is not evidence of evolution. You might consider it an example of intelligent design, since that's essentially what it is, but it absolutely in no way bears any relation to evolutionary theory, unless your evolutionary theory happens to be some greater intellect breeding Earth's species like pedigreed dogs.
-------Well, actually, whether it's changes in nature bringing out certain biological aspects or people doing it on purpose, what it does demonstrate is the ability to adapt. What ever the agent of change, change happens.
Oh, by the way. When you breed dogs, you DO see change from generation to generation. You have to, since dog breeders don't live for centuries.
--------No, but dogs can start breeding after barely 18 months. That means many generations in a single human lifetime. That wasn't "obvious"? By the way, take a look at us. Since the human genome project, it's estimated that some peoples genes can be reviewed going back 150,000 years. This is how we know we all came from Africa. As groups split off and when their own way, it is verified in the fossil record and by the age of the rocks the fossils show up in. Unless that's all a lie too?
And no, genetics don't work like paint at all. Did you even take biology in high school?
-------------Of course I took biology. I know that inherited characteristics don't work like paint, ah, but Darwin didn't know that. That was "his" theory. You so desperately wanted an "aha" moment, you subscribed that theory to me. I never said that. I said Darwin said that and Mendel disproved it.
No, they were not "brought together". Darwinists just quietly plagiarized Mendel's work and claimed it was "always" part of Darwinism.
-------------That is just not true. Modern evolutionary theory is, in part natural selection. Because of Natural selection, species change over time. lots of time. But there is also genetic drift, gene flow (inter breeding), mutation and recombination. You see, the best of both theories became on unified theory that is considered the Modern Theory of Evolution.
And you know absolutely bupkis about fossils.
-------------How would you know that? Do you even know what a fossil is? Some religious people believe God put bones in the ground so dogs have something to dig up. Others believe that God put bones in the ground to show us what creatures on other planets look like. Are those your beliefs?
The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic poseurs like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it. It's sad to watch.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here.
---------If what you are talking is science, then it has a new synonym - delusion. I have to admit, you had me laughing many times. What was especially fun was that I didn't have to look hardly anything up. Your arguments were so easy to refute even based on what little I know. I would love to watch you talk to a real biologist or an actual medical doctor and tell them your "theories" and "proofs". Laughter is great medicine and when it comes to science and humor, you are a pharmacist.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Terry
Shut the $%$ Up!
- Jan 15, 2009
- 5,222
- 1,136
- 48
I hate polls but I just got a pew poll call...computer generated questions...on the last question before I can answer they fucking hung up...know why? Because they didn't like my answers...didn't fit the outcome they were looking for. Polls are all BS
R
rdean
Guest
I hate polls but I just got a pew poll call...computer generated questions...on the last question before I can answer they fucking hung up...know why? Because they didn't like my answers...didn't fit the outcome they were looking for. Polls are all BS
If they didn't like your answers, perhaps it was actually a "sales pitch"?
I suspect no serious business would act that way. They would lose credibility and they would go out of business. I'm not disputing you. I just find it hard to believe that professionals wouldn't act, well, professional.
JohnStOnge
Member
- Jul 8, 2005
- 321
- 43
- 16
Someone may already have said what I'm going to say. I'd might have to read a whole bunch of posts in this thread to know and I'm not going to do that. But:
It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.
I wish this was the other message board I frequent most so you would be familiar with some of my past statements. But I have been involved in the world of science for many years. And I've said many times that there is a "left" philosophical bias among the overwhelming majority of scientists. And I'm not talking about the bias being "justified" by some kind of objective process.
I'm talking about stuff like being a biologist and talking to other biologists about issues such as whether or not shrimpers should be forced to use Turtle Excluder devices or whether or not a rancher should've been reamed by the Federal government for shooting a bear that first threatened his wildlife then threatened his life. In my opinion, there is a very palpable environmentalist bias among scientists when it comes to scientists who deal with that. I think there is also a strong egalitarian bias among social scientists. Ect. ect.
Of course I'm just me. You can believe it or not. But I think that, if you think that a poll like that is some kind of "validation" of liberal or Democratic Party political positions, you are missing the very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists.
It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.
I wish this was the other message board I frequent most so you would be familiar with some of my past statements. But I have been involved in the world of science for many years. And I've said many times that there is a "left" philosophical bias among the overwhelming majority of scientists. And I'm not talking about the bias being "justified" by some kind of objective process.
I'm talking about stuff like being a biologist and talking to other biologists about issues such as whether or not shrimpers should be forced to use Turtle Excluder devices or whether or not a rancher should've been reamed by the Federal government for shooting a bear that first threatened his wildlife then threatened his life. In my opinion, there is a very palpable environmentalist bias among scientists when it comes to scientists who deal with that. I think there is also a strong egalitarian bias among social scientists. Ect. ect.
Of course I'm just me. You can believe it or not. But I think that, if you think that a poll like that is some kind of "validation" of liberal or Democratic Party political positions, you are missing the very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists.
Last edited:
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #152
Let's cut to the chase.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
R
rdean
Guest
Someone may already have said what I'm going to say. I'd might have to read a whole bunch of posts in this thread to know and I'm not going to do that. But:
It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.
I wish this was the other message board I frequent most so you would be familiar with some of my past statements. But I have been involved in the world of science for many years. And I've said many times that there is a "left" philosophical bias among the overwhelming majority of scientists. And I'm not talking about the bias being "justified" by some kind of objective process.
I'm talking about stuff like being a biologist and talking to other biologists about issues such as whether or not shrimpers should be forced to use Turtle Excluder devices or whether or not a rancher should've been reamed by the Federal government for shooting a bear that first threatened his wildlife then threatened his life. In my opinion, there is a very palpable environmentalist bias among scientists when it comes to scientists who deal with that. I think there is also a strong egalitarian bias among social scientists. Ect. ect.
Of course I'm just me. You can believe it or not. But I think that, if you think that a poll like that is some kind of "validation" of liberal or Democratic Party political positions, you are missing the very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists.
"The very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists?"
That is NOT a possibility that I can see. For one, can you name any "philosophical" examples in science. Science deals with the world around us NOT mysticism or the "occult" or "emotional" arguments. It's all about "facts" and "data" and "observation" from which spring hypothesis and theories.
It's NOT the scientists who have left the Republican party. It's the very real fact that the Republican party has been taken over by religious zealots and chased out the scientists. Look at the many, many examples from just the last few years. The theatrics in Dover, mandatory Bible study in Texas Public Schools.
Name the benefits to science from religion. They are opposites. They do not interact. One deals with the "real" world and the other with "made up stuff".
In all the years that the right has been trying to push the supernatural into science, not a single paper has ever been presented for review to an established scientific organization. I'm not saying "reviewed", I'm saying "presented". There is nothing to present. Nothing.
Every single thing we eat, wear, our houses, our medicine, our military, everything has been touched by scientists.
What are the accomplishments of the religious? They stopped gays from being happy. They build big churches, like the Chrystal Cathedral. Of course, they had to get a gay guy to design it, Philip Johnson, and he wasn't allowed in once completed. And their other accomplishments? They support war and torture. They helped "solve" the Christian problem in Iraq. And yet, they stand on their soapbox and try to convince everyone they are morally superior. They are not. Most of the time, they're wrong.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
wow, you dont know SOOOO muchI was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.
That is too, too funny. Really.
So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?
Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".
You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".
I said:
Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".
You said:
"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."
Which of course, isn't what I said.
Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.
I know a little. Which is more than some.
A little knowledge is more dangerous than none sometimes.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Let's cut to the chase.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
Yes, let's cut to the chase.
Same for evolution.
Jay Canuck
by Crom you'll pay!
- Jul 30, 2009
- 3,090
- 214
- 48
Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #157
Let's cut to the chase.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
Yes, let's cut to the chase.
Same for evolution.
The overwhelming majority of biologists would disagree with you, so your opinion is worthless. But I do agree that ID and evolution should both be include in a class on Epistemology.
while i disagree with them doing thisTexas's mandatory Bible Class
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?
please point out on a map, where Handjob, TX is?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #159
Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?
Loony tunes, I guess.
The class is mandatory only to the point that it is in the cirriculum. The problem will be to find qualified instructors who will play by the law. Most schools will never actually hold the class. Santa Fe ISD, on the other hand (they make the rightard barfbats here look absolutely liberal), will probably thirteen every year, one for each grade and a mandatory one for the teachers and administration and staff.
Jay Canuck
by Crom you'll pay!
- Jul 30, 2009
- 3,090
- 214
- 48
(R-handjob) = Republican handjob....... but I'm willing to bet there is a town called Handjob in Texas.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 162
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 87
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 421
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8082
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-