Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[Hollie]

It's only a 'political' concept to radical bible-thumpers and their water carriers.

The rest of the civilized world sees it as an amply supported scientific theory.

Not so.


Pick up a book.

Yes, so.

Pick up a book besides the Bible.

Wait for it. PC is about to drench the thread with " quotes" she mines from Harun Yahya.

 

[manifold]

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm all for challenging scientific theories and ideas, always and always and always.

But when the alleged 'challenge' comes in the form of intelligent design, I know the person isn't serious about challenging the science at all and for them, it's all about religion and politics.

As a theory, evolution is right around ManMade Global Warming and far, far short of the theory of Gravity or Relativity.

I think the as yet unidentified FailSafe mechanism built into cells is a major item that can't just be ignored because it rattles your faith in Darwin

Is that your expert scientific opinion?

Is that how you say "I surrender"?

 

[manifold]

As a theory, evolution is right around ManMade Global Warming and far, far short of the theory of Gravity or Relativity.

I think the as yet unidentified FailSafe mechanism built into cells is a major item that can't just be ignored because it rattles your faith in Darwin

Is that your expert scientific opinion?

Is that how you say "I surrender"?

No. It was a valid question.

Are you saying that it's not 'your' opinion, or that you're just not an expert?

 

[Steven_R]

Modern advances in genetic engineering make it hard, near impossible, to accept the notion that cells mutate and evolve into different and better organisms, thus knocking the props out from under the theory of evolution

Generically altered cells have a built in failsafe system that keep them from changing and revert them back to their original use.

"The green cells are those which have been reprogrammed and are on the way to becoming iPS cells. The red cells are those where reprogramming has been initiated but which are now reverting to their pre-reprogramming state. Blue cells are those where the reversion process is further advanced. "

Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University

Why mess with perfection?

I'm all for challenging scientific theories and ideas, always and always and always.

But when the alleged 'challenge' comes in the form of intelligent design, I know the person isn't serious about challenging the science at all and for them, it's all about religion and politics.

As a theory, evolution is right around ManMade Global Warming and far, far short of the theory of Gravity or Relativity.

I think the as yet unidentified FailSafe mechanism built into cells is a major item that can't just be ignored because it rattles your faith in Darwin

And yet we've watched things like E. Coli mutate and develop new capabilities (like being able to consume the materials in a petri dish) and then not reverse the mutation even after thousands of generations. (Lenski's paper). There's a lot we don't understand about biological mechanisms and I, for one, am not ready to throw the baby away with the bathwater just because something can't be currently explained.

I'm waiting for a Discotute paper to explain Lenski's bacteria or how some bacteria developed the ability to consume nylon, something that is completely artificial.

 

[Steven_R]

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.

We can't explain everything about the Solar System, so we should bring back Geocentrism.

Teach the controversy!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.

"...contradictory...."

Indeed.


"It's hard to take anyone serious..."

If you are referring to me....you have either misunderstood the issue, or are obfuscating to win a point.


My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Stephen Gould expresses the same view:
"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge




Clearly you are uninformed.

 

[manifold]

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.

"...contradictory...."

Indeed.


"It's hard to take anyone serious..."

If you are referring to me....you have either misunderstood the issue, or are obfuscating to win a point.


My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Stephen Gould expresses the same view:
"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge




Clearly you are uninformed.

Clearly you are misinformed.

But anyone who takes you seriously gets what they deserve... even dumber.

 

[Hollie]

It's hard to take anyone serious who argues that because there is contradictory and incomplete evidence surrounding the theory of evolution it should be disregarded, while at the same time offering intelligent design as an alternative for which there is exactly zero scientific evidence.

"...contradictory...."

Indeed.


"It's hard to take anyone serious..."

If you are referring to me....you have either misunderstood the issue, or are obfuscating to win a point.


My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


Stephen Gould expresses the same view:
"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge




Clearly you are uninformed.

Have you forgotten that your two phony "quotes" have been debunked as creationist lies at least three times now?


Clearly you have no issue perpetrating a continued fraud when it serves your agenda of superstition and ignorance.

 

[WillReadmore]

My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

The first is just the "missing link" argument. But, evolution doesn't really work in the form of links on a chain - it works like a bush with changes happening all along the twigs.

From there, we need to remember that we find almost nothing in the fossil record compared to the volume of life that actually existed. Plus, life is mobile. The combination of these factors means that the chance of finding a fossil immediately between two other fossils in an evolutionary progression is astronomically low.


As for the second contention that we haven't observed a new species arise turns out to be false. We HAVE seen that. You can find examples quite easily by searching the internet.


What's discouraging to me is that we still see proponents of these false arguments. Why? If that is the basis of the argument against evolution, then ... case closed!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is that your expert scientific opinion?

Is that how you say "I surrender"?

No. It was a valid question.

Are you saying that it's not 'your' opinion, or that you're just not an expert?

Its my opinion and its a pretty damn good one too

 

[PoliticalChic]

My argument is that not only was Darwin mistaken in his description of how evolution occurs, but evidence proves the exact of his thesis: the fossil record regularly shows fully formed brand new species without any trail of accumulated mutations.


Further..."And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

The first is just the "missing link" argument. But, evolution doesn't really work in the form of links on a chain - it works like a bush with changes happening all along the twigs.

From there, we need to remember that we find almost nothing in the fossil record compared to the volume of life that actually existed. Plus, life is mobile. The combination of these factors means that the chance of finding a fossil immediately between two other fossils in an evolutionary progression is astronomically low.


As for the second contention that we haven't observed a new species arise turns out to be false. We HAVE seen that. You can find examples quite easily by searching the internet.


What's discouraging to me is that we still see proponents of these false arguments. Why? If that is the basis of the argument against evolution, then ... case closed!

Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
Good thing you came along.


Now...as far as your view of Darwin's theory....perhaps you should brush up:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.


This is what is known as a 'bottom-up' view.

The discovery of the Burgess Shale disprove same.

See if manifold will take you when he goes to the library.....

 

[WillReadmore]

Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
Good thing you came along.


Now...as far as your view of Darwin's theory....perhaps you should brush up:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.


This is what is known as a 'bottom-up' view.

The discovery of the Burgess Shale disprove same.

See if manifold will take you when he goes to the library.....

The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented. Darwin was an early thinker. Coming up with something he didn't fully understand is not an argument against evolution. And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind.

I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves. It certainly shows an explosion of new life, much of which was later eradicated - events of ebb and flow that are not unique in earth's biological history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good thing we have your word.....I was about to believe Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University)
Good thing you came along.


Now...as far as your view of Darwin's theory....perhaps you should brush up:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.


This is what is known as a 'bottom-up' view.

The discovery of the Burgess Shale disprove same.

See if manifold will take you when he goes to the library.....

The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented. Darwin was an early thinker. Coming up with something he didn't fully understand is not an argument against evolution. And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind.

I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves. It certainly shows an explosion of new life, much of which was later eradicated - events of ebb and flow that are not unique in earth's biological history.

"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.



"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.

 

[WillReadmore]

"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.


"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.

Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly.

And, you give no light in any other way. So, the only question is - why am I even bothering to respond?

Help me, please!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.


"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.

Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly.

And, you give no light in any other way. So, the only question is - why am I even bothering to respond?

Help me, please!

What is your first language?

Clearly, not English.

"Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly."

1. It is Darwin's theory that is in dispute here.
Do you know that Darwin's is but one of the theories of evolution?

2. Marx and Engels saw in Darwin's theory support of their communism.
The information is not to dispute evolution, but to enlighten as to why Darwin is advanced in secular institutions.



"...why am I even bothering to respond?"

OK...why?

 

[Hollie]

"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.


"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.

Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly.

And, you give no light in any other way. So, the only question is - why am I even bothering to respond?

Help me, please!

I suspect what you will find is that PC is not able to string words together into coherent sentences. Her posts are collections of cut and paste " quotes"

 

[WillReadmore]

What is your first language?

Clearly, not English.

"Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly."

1. It is Darwin's theory that is in dispute here.
Do you know that Darwin's is but one of the theories of evolution?

2. Marx and Engels saw in Darwin's theory support of their communism.
The information is not to dispute evolution, but to enlighten as to why Darwin is advanced in secular institutions.



"...why am I even bothering to respond?"

OK...why?

Seriously? You actually think someone wants to teach science because Marx and/or Engels liked it? Who dreamed up THAT nonsense?

Look. Evolution is a foundation of ALL modern biology.

It's a topic needed for college entrance in biological science majors in better colleges and universities. Also, it's a prime example of how modern scientists apply the rules of science in all fields.

I don't know where you are getting this nonsense of yours, but you really need to start looking somewhere else. You have NO idea what you're playing with.

 

[jasonnfree]

"The specifics of Darwin have been modified and augmented."
'Disproven' is the word you were hunting for.


"And, it is ABSOLUTELY not an argument for existence of a god of any kind."
What makes you bring that up?

Well...Darwin was endorsed by atheistic communists Marx and Engels.....I see the connection.

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



"I don't know what you think the Burgess Shale proves or disproves."
That's true....you probably don't know.
It proves that Darwin was wrong.

Quoting Marx and Engels in an attempt to dispute evolution seems especially silly.

And, you give no light in any other way. So, the only question is - why am I even bothering to respond?

Help me, please!

I suspect what you will find is that PC is not able to string words together into coherent sentences. Her posts are collections of cut and paste " quotes"

That's what I call her, cut and paste. She read a couple ann coulter books and awarded herself a phd. in education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is it possible that 'evolution' is less a scientific concept than a political one?

It's only a 'political' concept to radical bible-thumpers and their water carriers.

The rest of the civilized world sees it as an amply supported scientific theory.

You have to understand the PC scheme here, which is not uncommon among the evolution deniers.

1. She endeavours to show that the theory of evolution is imperfect and incomplete.

2. Having done that, she then tries to make an enormous leap, which is to declare that the theory of evolution because of 1 above is nothing more than a faith-based belief, a religion of sorts.

3. By (wrongly) bringing the theory of evolution down to the level of a religion, she then believes she's put it up against the Bible on a level playing field,

as if the theory of evolution vs. Christianity is no different than, say, Hinduism vs. Christianity.