Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Downs

Yes, we know, Downs people are untermenchen.

You can't have functioning eugenics or a Master Race without belief in Darwin

Why do we use bloodhounds for tracking people if eugenics doesn't work?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Downs

Yes, we know, Downs people are untermenchen.

You can't have functioning eugenics or a Master Race without belief in Darwin

Why do we use bloodhounds for tracking people if eugenics doesn't work?

Call a doctor immediately, it's clear that you bumped your head and are concussed because you're spouting jibberish

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.....

So what exactly do you trace your ancestry back to? What do you believe was the first living creature in your family tree,

and what is your scientific evidence to support that?

 

[Peterf]

Religious people who are rational (yes, there are some of us) have had to conclude that large portions of Genesis are allegorical and not factual, and that the scribes and prophets were reporting on the world as they understood it, and not the world as it exists from a scientific standpoint.

"Creation-ism" is not a science, and has no place in any credible academic institution. "Intelligent design" is merely an attempt to shade misunderstandings of Evolution so that they appear to be "the Hand of God." Fine for Church or dinner conversation, but not really appropriate for a high school "science" class.

I'm sorry but religious people are by definition irrational, preferring faith to reason.

But I'll stretch a point in your case and say that at times you reach the level of semi-rationality. Your final paragraph is really very good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, we know, Downs people are untermenchen.

You can't have functioning eugenics or a Master Race without belief in Darwin

Why do we use bloodhounds for tracking people if eugenics doesn't work?

Call a doctor immediately, it's clear that you bumped your head and are concussed because you're spouting jibberish

You don't believe selective breeding works. How do you explain the superiority of bloodhounds for tracking?

Random accident?

 

[Peterf]

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.....

So what exactly do you trace your ancestry back to? What do you believe was the first living creature in your family tree,

and what is your scientific evidence to support that?

I believe that I - and every one else - am related to all extant forms of life. My evidence is that I share a proportion of my DNA with them.

Since the discovery of DNA to be a creationist is the equivalent of being a flat-earther.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do we use bloodhounds for tracking people if eugenics doesn't work?

Call a doctor immediately, it's clear that you bumped your head and are concussed because you're spouting jibberish

You don't believe selective breeding works. How do you explain the superiority of bloodhounds for tracking?

Random accident?

I thought you were kidding. That's sad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

".... soft tissue doesn't fossilize and therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."

The real impossibility is finding evidence of soft tissue between your ears.

Did you know that there are fossils of leaves?
"The oldest fossils of land plants visible with the naked eye come from Ireland and date from the Middle Silurian (425 million years)."
The evolution of ferns

" ....therefore it is impossible to ever have a complete fossil record."
Moron.



Can you possibly be so stupid that you deny the fossil record with the Niles Eldridge quote right in front of you.


Yep....you can.



Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.... curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology,...
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dunce.

Once again PoliticalSpice does a mindless google search without any actual understanding of what she is looking for. Taphonomy is the study of fossilization and the first thing you learn is that bacteria is the primary cause of soft tissue decay. Only in anoxic environments is it possible to prevent bacteria from breaking down soft tissue. These are extremely rare environments. Furthermore most of these have only been capable of preserving very small samples mostly on the microbial level.

Your quest to outwit evolution and prove that your pagan belief in a creator is going nowhere because science has nothing to prove but you do. Furthermore science is the ongoing quest for knowledge and you will never be able to keep up since your beliefs were fossilized 2000 years ago.

There are tons of things about which you are ignorant....and what a fossil is, and how fossilization occurs, is just one more of them.



There is only one hope for you...

....read everything I post, and believe same totally and without hesitation.

Begin immediately.

So have we at least established that you reject the so-called young earth 'theories', and thus

you acknowledge that the Bible is in fact wrong about that aspect of creation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.....

So what exactly do you trace your ancestry back to? What do you believe was the first living creature in your family tree,

and what is your scientific evidence to support that?

I believe that I - and every one else - am related to all extant forms of life. My evidence is that I share a proportion of my DNA with them.

Since the discovery of DNA to be a creationist is the equivalent of being a flat-earther.

Well at least our people of faith are not still murdering people who espouse heretical beliefs based on science (as far as I know).

Nowadays the 'heretics' are merely pelted with snotty remarks, as we see in this thread.

 

[Peterf]

So what exactly do you trace your ancestry back to? What do you believe was the first living creature in your family tree,

and what is your scientific evidence to support that?

I believe that I - and every one else - am related to all extant forms of life. My evidence is that I share a proportion of my DNA with them.

Since the discovery of DNA to be a creationist is the equivalent of being a flat-earther.

Well at least our people of faith are not still murdering people who espouse heretical beliefs based on science (as far as I know).

Nowadays the 'heretics' are merely pelted with snotty remarks, as we see in this thread.

I cannot believe that you are unaware that Muslims are STILL murdering people who have abandoned their religion, often because science has convinced them that it is a load of old codswallop.

 

[Steven_R]

Some of the plaintiffs and the judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case received death threats. The judge ended up with US Marshal protection for a while.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe that I - and every one else - am related to all extant forms of life. My evidence is that I share a proportion of my DNA with them.

Since the discovery of DNA to be a creationist is the equivalent of being a flat-earther.

Well at least our people of faith are not still murdering people who espouse heretical beliefs based on science (as far as I know).

Nowadays the 'heretics' are merely pelted with snotty remarks, as we see in this thread.

I cannot believe that you are unaware that Muslims are STILL murdering people who have abandoned their religion, often because science has convinced them that it is a load of old codswallop.

Is there a long list somewhere of Muslim-Americans killing other Americans because they believe in evolution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, for sake of argument, let's remove evolution from the list of possible explanations for how we and all our fellow living creatures got here.

For sake of argument, you cannot use evolution as any part of your explanation.

Now:

Explain how we got here, and support your explanation with a mountain of evidence, where the evidence for evolution used to sit.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm sorry but religious people are by definition irrational, preferring faith to reason.

How ironic that you would be irrational while stating the above.

 

[Unkotare]

Okay, for sake of argument, let's remove evolution from the list of possible explanations for how we and all our fellow living creatures got here.

For sake of argument, you cannot use evolution as any part of your explanation.

Now:

Explain how we got here, and support your explanation with a mountain of evidence, where the evidence for evolution used to sit.

You ignorant fool! Didn't they teach you about Stewie's return pad in school?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Isn't the microbe that consumes oil spills a step in that direction?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

In your opinion!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Your motivation of course, PoliticalSpice. Only fundamentalist Christians are waging a "war on science".

 

[Peterf]

Well at least our people of faith are not still murdering people who espouse heretical beliefs based on science (as far as I know).

Nowadays the 'heretics' are merely pelted with snotty remarks, as we see in this thread.

I cannot believe that you are unaware that Muslims are STILL murdering people who have abandoned their religion, often because science has convinced them that it is a load of old codswallop.

Is there a long list somewhere of Muslim-Americans killing other Americans because they believe in evolution?

Not as far as I know. But there are Muslims who kill other Muslims because they have stopped believing in Islam.