Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[Old Rocks]

Evolution is not a directable process.

The banana, corn, and the domesticated hound prove otherwise.

Man can take control of his evolution, effecting evolutionary pressures that select the best of Him to improve Mankind's form and fitness.

this exactly the nazi-eugenic doctrine, thanks to clear it

"the good race will extermine the bad savage race"- massacres is a natural process

Well, first, Darwin did not state good and bad. He stated civilized nations would conquer and replace less civilized ones. Which is exactly what happened. For a rational explanation, read Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'.

And neither the Nazis or Communists accepted Darwin's Natural Selection.

 

[code1211]

Evolution is not a directable process.

The banana, corn, and the domesticated hound prove otherwise.

Man can take control of his evolution, effecting evolutionary pressures that select the best of Him to improve Mankind's form and fitness.

Yes, engineered corn or thoroughbred horses are evidence of directed evolution, if that is a term.

Man can have an effect on his evolution, but that old unintended consequence has a way of rearing its ugly head at the least opportune time. If man thinks he can take control of his evolution, I would almost think that evolution might have other plans than to be man's bee-otch.

 

[THE LIGHT]

What the **** does a math professor know about evolution?
Sort of like Dick Cheney telling our Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan how to conduct, (or **** up), the war.
I would like to see JUST ONE opponent of the theory or evolution that does not base some, most or all of their opposition on religion.
Is there an atheist that believes evolution is false? MOST Christian scientists believe in it. 95% of all colleges and universities teach it as fact. Many Christians in those schools teaching it.
Their Christian faith, unlike the posters here that deny fact, is so strong and not so weak to be challenged by scientific fact.

Yep lots of hoaxes have been taught as fact in the school system and continue to be. I guess the part that is most important is that they "say" that they are fact. That is all that matters right?

There is not ONE Christian that believes in macro-evolution though. Partly because they believe in the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God. But also because qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist or a practitioner of witchcraft but rather one who can postulate, observe, test and validate theories about the creation set before them.

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Most followers of Christ don't believe in what Christ taught. That's a new one.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Could not have said it better myself

Thank you for not trying.

 

[antagon]

Yep lots of hoaxes have been taught as fact in the school system and continue to be. I guess the part that is most important is that they "say" that they are fact. That is all that matters right?

There is not ONE Christian that believes in macro-evolution though. Partly because they believe in the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God. But also because qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist or a practitioner of witchcraft but rather one who can postulate, observe, test and validate theories about the creation set before them.

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Most followers of Christ don't believe in what Christ taught. That's a new one.

jesus never taught anyone the virtues of ignorance, however, your faith, whatever that may be, has construed him to have done so. dont bother quoting me any scripture, you can keep that to yourself. just dont speak for followers of god who have an understanding of the way his world works. in your narrow little world, such a concept of intellect and faith coexisting might be far fetched, 'a new one', or even funny, but that's the way the other 80%+ christians on the planet roll.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why must the human form be free from disease?

You'd rather your child were ill and suffering than healthy and well? You are a truly horrible individual, if that is the case.

Why should we prefer the promotion of strong humans?

You'd rather your child were sickly and weak in body than healthy and well?

Why must we have intelligent or industrial humans?

You'd rather your child were mentally incompetent and unable to compete in life or succeed than that your child be gifted with great intellect?

Have you no morality, sir? No compassion?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

it is pretty retarded to look toward genetics, particularly via eugenics, to hope to improve humanity. our ability to improve ourselves and our society is by far the more effective route.

Improving the human body is one way of improving ourselves. Genetics is one method of improving the human form. Together with cybernetics, transplants, and medicine, they form the tree that is modern eugenics.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Evolution is not a directable process.

The banana, corn, and the domesticated hound prove otherwise.

Man can take control of his evolution, effecting evolutionary pressures that select the best of Him to improve Mankind's form and fitness.

Yes engineered corn or thoroughbred horses are evidence of directed evolutiojn is that is a term.

Man can have an effect on his evolution, but that old unintended consequence has a way of rearing its ubly head at the least opportune time. If man thinks he can take control of his evolution, i would almost think that evolution might have other plans than to be man's bee-otch.

Evolution is not some sentient thing with its own will.

 

[logical4u]

What the **** does a math professor know about evolution?
Sort of like Dick Cheney telling our Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan how to conduct, (or **** up), the war.
I would like to see JUST ONE opponent of the theory or evolution that does not base some, most or all of their opposition on religion.
Is there an atheist that believes evolution is false? MOST Christian scientists believe in it. 95% of all colleges and universities teach it as fact. Many Christians in those schools teaching it.
Their Christian faith, unlike the posters here that deny fact, is so strong and not so weak to be challenged by scientific fact.

Yep lots of hoaxes have been taught as fact in the school system and continue to be. I guess the part that is most important is that they "say" that they are fact. That is all that matters right?

There is not ONE Christian that believes in macro-evolution though. Partly because they believe in the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God. But also because qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist or a practitioner of witchcraft but rather one who can postulate, observe, test and validate theories about the creation set before them.

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Can you name some Christians that believe that one species has 'evolved' into a completely different species.
Don't bother with the "you don't understand evolution speech"; if you believe people and apes had a common ancestor, you believe that one species not only evolved into one other species, but two other species. There is no proof of this. 'Scientists' have been trying to 'discover' these 'missing links' since Darwin was living. They have not been able to provide the proof, or even present plausible evidence. They will show you a square peg and swear it will fit in the round hole. It is not believable. The 'books' they have are written by men that had serious problems (they were men). They are presenting 'theory' as 'fact'. It is a 'belief', designed to make their name famous, not to explain any deep mystery. Sci-fi has as much 'fact', and it is a lot more fun to read.

 

[logical4u]

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Most followers of Christ don't believe in what Christ taught. That's a new one.

jesus never taught anyone the virtues of ignorance, however, your faith, whatever that may be, has construed him to have done so. dont bother quoting me any scripture, you can keep that to yourself. just dont speak for followers of god who have an understanding of the way his world works. in your narrow little world, such a concept of intellect and faith coexisting might be far fetched, 'a new one', or even funny, but that's the way the other 80%+ christians on the planet roll.

Examples????

 

[logical4u]

the claims of "no evidence" just shows the idiocy and denial from those that don't want to believe.THere is loads of evidence. A timeline of dated fossils showing the less complex animals in the oldest rocks, and progression. The evidence is in the DNA of all the animal genomes that have been sequences. You can see where genes duplicated, moved via transposon to other parts of the DNA, where chromosomes fused like we see in apes where humans have 46 instead of 48 like that apes due to fusion of chromosomes. It's mapped out right there in the DNA

Crime scene investigators can solve crimes without every being there. We can get insights into the past based on sound science. There are so many things we can't physically see but we know exist thanks to science. Don't believe it? Look at all the technology we have, which PROVES that science works.

Don't believe in evolution look at how viruses and bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant and unable to be recognized by antibodies in the host. Many viruses which integrate into the host genome will take parts of it with them when they excise from the DNA to infect another host. many viruses evade the immune system by having genes involved with the host's anti-viral immunity and having them mutate to inhibit the immune system of the host. If you had any higher education in the sciences this would make perfect sense. Ignorance of the topic you dont' want to believe does not mean it's not true, its just you don't have the education, intelligence and/or willingness to accept it

I must be one of the intellectually challenged. Isn't 'mutation', different from 'evolution'?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the claims of "no evidence" just shows the idiocy and denial from those that don't want to believe.THere is loads of evidence. A timeline of dated fossils showing the less complex animals in the oldest rocks, and progression. The evidence is in the DNA of all the animal genomes that have been sequences. You can see where genes duplicated, moved via transposon to other parts of the DNA, where chromosomes fused like we see in apes where humans have 46 instead of 48 like that apes due to fusion of chromosomes. It's mapped out right there in the DNA

Crime scene investigators can solve crimes without every being there. We can get insights into the past based on sound science. There are so many things we can't physically see but we know exist thanks to science. Don't believe it? Look at all the technology we have, which PROVES that science works.

Don't believe in evolution look at how viruses and bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant and unable to be recognized by antibodies in the host. Many viruses which integrate into the host genome will take parts of it with them when they excise from the DNA to infect another host. many viruses evade the immune system by having genes involved with the host's anti-viral immunity and having them mutate to inhibit the immune system of the host. If you had any higher education in the sciences this would make perfect sense. Ignorance of the topic you dont' want to believe does not mean it's not true, its just you don't have the education, intelligence and/or willingness to accept it

I must be one of the intellectually challenged. Isn't 'mutation', different from 'evolution'?

Mutation is one mechanism involved in evolution.

Should a mutation survive and spread via genetic drift, such that a sizable group ultimately inherits the mutation, then it is said that the population in question has evolved a new variation differentiating it from pother populations.

 

[Dr Gregg]

the claims of "no evidence" just shows the idiocy and denial from those that don't want to believe.THere is loads of evidence. A timeline of dated fossils showing the less complex animals in the oldest rocks, and progression. The evidence is in the DNA of all the animal genomes that have been sequences. You can see where genes duplicated, moved via transposon to other parts of the DNA, where chromosomes fused like we see in apes where humans have 46 instead of 48 like that apes due to fusion of chromosomes. It's mapped out right there in the DNA

Crime scene investigators can solve crimes without every being there. We can get insights into the past based on sound science. There are so many things we can't physically see but we know exist thanks to science. Don't believe it? Look at all the technology we have, which PROVES that science works.

Don't believe in evolution look at how viruses and bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant and unable to be recognized by antibodies in the host. Many viruses which integrate into the host genome will take parts of it with them when they excise from the DNA to infect another host. many viruses evade the immune system by having genes involved with the host's anti-viral immunity and having them mutate to inhibit the immune system of the host. If you had any higher education in the sciences this would make perfect sense. Ignorance of the topic you dont' want to believe does not mean it's not true, its just you don't have the education, intelligence and/or willingness to accept it

I must be one of the intellectually challenged. Isn't 'mutation', different from 'evolution'?

NOt really, its a mechanism of change in the genome that allows for some members to survive certain conditions and pass those beneficial genes on their offspring, when combined with natural selection

 

[code1211]

The banana, corn, and the domesticated hound prove otherwise.

Man can take control of his evolution, effecting evolutionary pressures that select the best of Him to improve Mankind's form and fitness.

Yes engineered corn or thoroughbred horses are evidence of directed evolutiojn is that is a term.

Man can have an effect on his evolution, but that old unintended consequence has a way of rearing its ubly head at the least opportune time. If man thinks he can take control of his evolution, i would almost think that evolution might have other plans than to be man's bee-otch.

Evolution is not some sentient thing with its own will.

So true. It's more like a drunk weaving and falling its way across town or not. It just meanders around and ends up somewhere. No plan, no destination, no design.

For "man" to try to impose some order on evolution is just asking for a not so tidy surprise.

 

[antagon]

Yep lots of hoaxes have been taught as fact in the school system and continue to be. I guess the part that is most important is that they "say" that they are fact. That is all that matters right?

There is not ONE Christian that believes in macro-evolution though. Partly because they believe in the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God. But also because qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist or a practitioner of witchcraft but rather one who can postulate, observe, test and validate theories about the creation set before them.

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Can you name some Christians that believe that one species has 'evolved' into a completely different species.
Don't bother with the "you don't understand evolution speech"; if you believe people and apes had a common ancestor, you believe that one species not only evolved into one other species, but two other species. There is no proof of this. 'Scientists' have been trying to 'discover' these 'missing links' since Darwin was living. They have not been able to provide the proof, or even present plausible evidence. They will show you a square peg and swear it will fit in the round hole. It is not believable. The 'books' they have are written by men that had serious problems (they were men). They are presenting 'theory' as 'fact'. It is a 'belief', designed to make their name famous, not to explain any deep mystery. Sci-fi has as much 'fact', and it is a lot more fun to read.

i could start with myself. i subscribe to evolution, even as simply as you've put it. only fundamental christianity posits a declaration on what science their congregation is meant to believe or goes one further and aims to make scientific declarations of their own.

so the situation remains that some folks who adhere to the teachings of christ arent beholden to the idea that the world was literally created in seven days and that noah literally brought 2 of each critter on a boat a few thousand years ago. these christians vastly outnumber those who do believe these stories by writ.

just as you claim that the way science delivers its findings damages the credibility of it, i feel the same about religion. while neither god nor scientific method get dinged by malpractice, scientific communities and religious communities imperil their cause when they attempt to stretch ideas to truths. objective minds see that shit for what it is.

my faith does not bar my thinking about nature from what can be observed from it. my faith in science doesn't mix theory with fact, and i, too am turned off by the way some topics are taught in school and popular media, because of the credibility issues they raise.

as to scientists trying to discover missing links and all that, the bear share of genetic and biological research, even directly related to evolution, is not focussed on making the theory more convincing to fundamentalists. you could look into what breakthroughs biological science has derived since darwin for some evidence of that. but i'm pleased that people are working toward understanding of our nature and physical origins, rather than claiming that 'knowledge' of our spiritual origins will suffice.

 

[antagon]

Yes engineered corn or thoroughbred horses are evidence of directed evolutiojn is that is a term.

Man can have an effect on his evolution, but that old unintended consequence has a way of rearing its ubly head at the least opportune time. If man thinks he can take control of his evolution, i would almost think that evolution might have other plans than to be man's bee-otch.

Evolution is not some sentient thing with its own will.

So true. It's more like a drunk weaving and falling its way across town or not. It just meanders around and ends up somewhere. No plan, no destination, no design.

For "man" to try to impose some order on evolution is just asking for a not so tidy surprise.

i hate personifications of evolution.

i stopped my subscription to scientific american over that shit. that and climate change-based revisionism of everything fitting or not.

 

[code1211]

Yep lots of hoaxes have been taught as fact in the school system and continue to be. I guess the part that is most important is that they "say" that they are fact. That is all that matters right?

There is not ONE Christian that believes in macro-evolution though. Partly because they believe in the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God. But also because qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist or a practitioner of witchcraft but rather one who can postulate, observe, test and validate theories about the creation set before them.

have you considered that you are bullshitting yourself about all christians? 'the qualifications for being a scientist is not being an evolutionist' ok.. the qualifications for being a christian is not being an ignoramus. the vast majority of people who believe in and follow Christ aren't fundamentalists. not even close.

Can you name some Christians that believe that one species has 'evolved' into a completely different species.
Don't bother with the "you don't understand evolution speech"; if you believe people and apes had a common ancestor, you believe that one species not only evolved into one other species, but two other species. There is no proof of this. 'Scientists' have been trying to 'discover' these 'missing links' since Darwin was living. They have not been able to provide the proof, or even present plausible evidence. They will show you a square peg and swear it will fit in the round hole. It is not believable. The 'books' they have are written by men that had serious problems (they were men). They are presenting 'theory' as 'fact'. It is a 'belief', designed to make their name famous, not to explain any deep mystery. Sci-fi has as much 'fact', and it is a lot more fun to read.

I've wondered about this for some time. It seems unusual that so many animals have so many similar parts. Different sizes and so on, but very similar. Even dinosaurs had skeletons similar to mammels. Same with reptiles and birds. Nervous systems share many similarities between species.

Rib cages, two smaller apendages and two larger, a skull, mouth, teeth, two eyes, pelvis, spine, scapulas and so on. Why is the brain always in the skull? Why are the lungs always above the intentines? Why is sex always the vehicle to procreation?

There are so many similarities that the question should not be to prove there is commonality but rather to prove there is not. Creative people have developed various modes of transport. Some have wheels, some treads, some rails, and some blades. If the various animals on the planet rose from a poof, why are there not equal measures of various designs?

Also, there is the DNA component of every living design. Why DNA and only DNA? Why not some other basic design cue? Why does a fetus grow gills before lungs? Why is every fetus female until well into gestation? If there is a biblical connection, it would seem more logical that every fetus would be male originally.

It seems like there is just too much progression in the process for it to originally have been just a "poof" kind of an affair.

 

[Freeman]

The banana, corn, and the domesticated hound prove otherwise.

Man can take control of his evolution, effecting evolutionary pressures that select the best of Him to improve Mankind's form and fitness.

this exactly the nazi-eugenic doctrine, thanks to clear it

"the good race will extermine the bad savage race"- massacres is a natural process

Fail.

Please cite where I advocated 'destroying' anyone.

Let me google that for you

If you knew your partner or yourself carried a faulty copy of a gene which, if inherited, would lead to medical problems or other concerns in your child, would you love your child enough to take measures to ensure your child inherited the best you could give?

Eugenics is the moral obligation of those who love Mankind and would see the human form strong and free from disease.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdWBP52gxs]YouTube - Darwin, Nazi Eugenics and Selective Breeding[/ame]

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Everyone believes in selective breeding. Every time someone choose a sexual partner they find attractive over someone they do not, that is selective breeding- the conscious choosing of a partner based on their fitness and quality. It is mankind's awareness of natural selection and the willful participation in selecting the finest forms.

 

[antagon]

Everyone believes in selective breeding. Every time someone choose a sexual partner they find attractive over someone they do not, that is selective breeding- the conscious choosing of a partner based on their fitness and quality. It is mankind's awareness of natural selection and the willful participation in selecting the finest forms.

i'm trying to make a dent, but ya cant save the world