Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[FurthurBB]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

I don't get why God couldn't have thought of evolution? Its like they think God was too stupid to come up with it.

Only Darwinians think that way.

You could really drop the insult because it says more about your ignorance than anything else and I am a biologist and I have never thought that anything to do with evolution is inconsistent with any religion. So, stop assuming you know anything about it. Thanks.

 

[Luissa]

I believe there is probably a higher being, don't know what it is, but if there is it was probably smart enough to either create evolution or create something that was intelligent enough to evolve.

I do for certain that God is not a woman.. If God was a woman we wouldn't have periods, PMS, and hot flashes. Just sayin!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I believe there is probably a higher being, don't know what it is, but if there is it was probably smart enough to either create evolution or create something that was intelligent enough to evolve.

I do for certain that God is not a woman.. If God was a woman we wouldn't have periods, PMS, and hot flashes. Just sayin!

I wouldn't go that far to say a god couldn't be a woman, the flaws of men outnumber those of women, just look at what sex runs just about every government in the world.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I believe there is probably a higher being, don't know what it is, but if there is it was probably smart enough to either create evolution or create something that was intelligent enough to evolve.

I do for certain that God is not a woman.. If God was a woman we wouldn't have periods, PMS, and hot flashes. Just sayin!

you deserve it for conspiring with the snake.

 

[Divine Wind]

I do for certain that God is not a woman.. If God was a woman we wouldn't have periods, PMS, and hot flashes. Just sayin!

Yes, but women have multiple orgasms and babies, so it's an even trade.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I do for certain that God is not a woman.. If God was a woman we wouldn't have periods, PMS, and hot flashes. Just sayin!

Yes, but women have multiple orgasms and babies, so it's an even trade.

Well I'm on board for the first part but I can't say I'd ever want to have a baby growing inside me and have it come out of my privates.

 

[CryingKoala]

I posted the whole article so everyone can see what you were doing. You're arguing theory not reality.

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So you don't attack the message, you attack the person because he didn't add the source.

I have debated this very issue many times in this forum. And from time to time i make a mistake but to call someone dishonest is just your sides way of turning attention away from the message, but your objection is noted.

You are trying to pass off psuedoscience as something to be taken at face value, the messenger is important here for credibility. There is no reason to take the works of Institute for Creation Science as if they are actually a scientifically vetted source.

If you were quoting some kind of peer reviewed journal accepted in the field, then it could be considered at face value. What you have instead is self-serving work by a fringe group with no recognition in the scientific community.

More likely than not even if it came from a legit source, it was probably quotemined and distorted by the ICR spin staff.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Natural selection does not remove mutations. Natural selection is just that if a species survives to reproduce their genes get passed on. I am not sure what you mean by mutations have a hard time surviving in the gene pool. No mutations add new genetic information and most mutations do not affect the organism in any way. I already explained natural selection and hopefully now you see why your question about knowing mutations is just silly. I could not possibly show you how many beneficial mutations there are because a mutation that is harmful or silent in one environment is the same mutation that allows an organism to survive in another. Mutations rarely pop up that are just beneficial in the environment the organism is living in.

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Gene fixation is another subject all together.

How do you figure that is the engine of evolution along with a very intelligent process called Natural selection according to your theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what i was doing was providing the source which you copied and pasted in part without revealing the source.

you are a dishonest ignorant clown.

you were not created that way, you have yourself to blame for turning out to be such a miserable failure.

So you don't attack the message, you attack the person because he didn't add the source.

I have debated this very issue many times in this forum. And from time to time i make a mistake but to call someone dishonest is just your sides way of turning attention away from the message, but your objection is noted.

You are trying to pass off psuedoscience as something to be taken at face value, the messenger is important here for credibility. There is no reason to take the works of Institute for Creation Science as if they are actually a scientifically vetted source.

If you were quoting some kind of peer reviewed journal accepted in the field, then it could be considered at face value. What you have instead is self-serving work by a fringe group with no recognition in the scientific community.

More likely than not even if it came from a legit source, it was probably quotemined and distorted by the ICR spin staff.

R.H. Byles is an evolutionist and he is the one that furnished this information. It seems my source had his education wrong,he is an anthropologist.

 

[CryingKoala]

So you don't attack the message, you attack the person because he didn't add the source.

I have debated this very issue many times in this forum. And from time to time i make a mistake but to call someone dishonest is just your sides way of turning attention away from the message, but your objection is noted.

You are trying to pass off psuedoscience as something to be taken at face value, the messenger is important here for credibility. There is no reason to take the works of Institute for Creation Science as if they are actually a scientifically vetted source.

If you were quoting some kind of peer reviewed journal accepted in the field, then it could be considered at face value. What you have instead is self-serving work by a fringe group with no recognition in the scientific community.

More likely than not even if it came from a legit source, it was probably quotemined and distorted by the ICR spin staff.

R.H. Byles is an evolutionist and he is the one that furnished this information. It seems my source had his education wrong,he is an anthropologist.

So its a case of quote-mining. Since you were not using the original source but one edited for effect.
Quote mining - RationalWiki

A very common tactic for Creationist arguments to claim a scientist allegedly agrees with them when in fact when read in full context it is clearly not the case.
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

 

[FurthurBB]

Geneticist R.H. Byles say's the first condition that has to be met for mutation fixation is a naturtal enviornment.

Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation. This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

Gene fixation is another subject all together.

How do you figure that is the engine of evolution along with a very intelligent process called Natural selection according to your theory.

No gene fixation does not have a lot to do with evolution it has more to do with conservation and ecology. Gene fixation is not when a gene stays in the gene pool it is when there is no variation of that gene. There is nothing at all intelligent about natural selection, saying that just shows your confusion on the subject. What is intelligent about if a species survives to have offspring their genes will be passed on?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Gene fixation is another subject all together.

How do you figure that is the engine of evolution along with a very intelligent process called Natural selection according to your theory.

No gene fixation does not have a lot to do with evolution it has more to do with conservation and ecology. Gene fixation is not when a gene stays in the gene pool it is when there is no variation of that gene. There is nothing at all intelligent about natural selection, saying that just shows your confusion on the subject. What is intelligent about if a species survives to have offspring their genes will be passed on?

Gene fixation is necessary for a trait to remain in the genepool so it can be passed on or you get no evolutionary change.

And that was sarcasm about my comment for Natural selection,i probably should have made it more obvious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are trying to pass off psuedoscience as something to be taken at face value, the messenger is important here for credibility. There is no reason to take the works of Institute for Creation Science as if they are actually a scientifically vetted source.

If you were quoting some kind of peer reviewed journal accepted in the field, then it could be considered at face value. What you have instead is self-serving work by a fringe group with no recognition in the scientific community.

More likely than not even if it came from a legit source, it was probably quotemined and distorted by the ICR spin staff.

R.H. Byles is an evolutionist and he is the one that furnished this information. It seems my source had his education wrong,he is an anthropologist.

So its a case of quote-mining. Since you were not using the original source but one edited for effect.
Quote mining - RationalWiki

A very common tactic for Creationist arguments to claim a scientist allegedly agrees with them when in fact when read in full context it is clearly not the case.
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

No one was claiming he agrees with creationists

His work was being critiqued by creationists, I thought that was very obvious.

 

[FurthurBB]

How do you figure that is the engine of evolution along with a very intelligent process called Natural selection according to your theory.

No gene fixation does not have a lot to do with evolution it has more to do with conservation and ecology. Gene fixation is not when a gene stays in the gene pool it is when there is no variation of that gene. There is nothing at all intelligent about natural selection, saying that just shows your confusion on the subject. What is intelligent about if a species survives to have offspring their genes will be passed on?

Gene fixation is necessary for a trait to remain in the genepool so it can be passed on or you get no evolutionary change.

And that was sarcasm about my comment for Natural selection,i probably should have made it more obvious.

No, you are wrong, here Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

Gene fixation is another subject all together.

How do you figure that is the engine of evolution along with a very intelligent process called Natural selection according to your theory.

No gene fixation does not have a lot to do with evolution it has more to do with conservation and ecology. Gene fixation is not when a gene stays in the gene pool it is when there is no variation of that gene. There is nothing at all intelligent about natural selection, saying that just shows your confusion on the subject. What is intelligent about if a species survives to have offspring their genes will be passed on?

Let's not go around in circles anymore.

Tell me what drives Macro-evolution according to you ?

Tell me where this new information comes from ?

You have said some things that i have not heard from the typical Neo Darwinist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No gene fixation does not have a lot to do with evolution it has more to do with conservation and ecology. Gene fixation is not when a gene stays in the gene pool it is when there is no variation of that gene. There is nothing at all intelligent about natural selection, saying that just shows your confusion on the subject. What is intelligent about if a species survives to have offspring their genes will be passed on?

Gene fixation is necessary for a trait to remain in the genepool so it can be passed on or you get no evolutionary change.

And that was sarcasm about my comment for Natural selection,i probably should have made it more obvious.

No, you are wrong, here Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fixation supposedly takes place through genetic drift, i know all that. But the mutated gene has to have fixation for it to spread through the population.

 

[signelect]

This just goes to show off we are on our priorities. The World is burning and our financial house is on the verge of collapse and people think the most important question to ask potential candidates is what they think of theories of the Earth's creation. As if an opinion on events no one was alive to witness have any bearing on getting our AAA credit rating back, paying our debts, getting the government off the people's back and getting them back to work, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm always up for healthy debate about faith, politics, science, whatever. But I can be pretty tolerant when it comes to what someones opinion on an unimportant matter is if they have the right solutons to everything else.

Im with that! I mean... i thought here in the US were allowed to believe whatever belief i want. One for sure thing is that we all do believe that we need s different solution to what our country is going through.
We can all agree on lowering property taxes and more jobs.

 

[signelect]

How is Perrys' religion belief affect the country? He sure does know how to run Texas.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How is Perrys' religion belief affect the country? He sure does know how to run Texas.

They believe if he does not believe in the theory of evolution he is not smart enough to run the country.

Maybe that is the problem, there are too many leaders in washington that believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[CryingKoala]

How is Perrys' religion belief affect the country? He sure does know how to run Texas.

...Into the ground.

The sad facts behind Rick Perry’s Texas miracle - The Washington Post

It has the fourth-highest poverty rate of any state. It tied with Mississippi last year for the highest percentage of workers in minimum-wage jobs. It ranks first in adults without high school diplomas. Twenty-six percent of Texans have no health insurance — the highest percentage of medically uninsured residents of any state. It leads the nation in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance. Texas has an inordinate number of employers who provide no insurance to their workers, partly because insurance rates are high, thanks to an absence of regulations.

Perry seems quite comfortable with the state’s lagging performance in what we might term the pursuit-of-happiness index. Consider his indifference toward education: In 2008, the state comptroller found that 12 percent of Texans lacked high school diplomas and that the level would rise to 30 percent by 2040 unless the state’s commitment to education was considerably increased. This year, though, when confronted with a $27 billion budget deficit, Perry did not raise taxes but instead slashed $4 billion from K-12 schools. In this regard, the equation of Perry with China’s leaders is unfair to China: The Chinese understand that the better educated their people become, the more high-skill and high-compensating jobs their nation will attain. No such understanding seems to have permeated Perry’s brain.

In one significant particular, though, Perry’s policies fairly ape the Chinese. Over the past eight years, the state has given businesses nearly $500 million in grants and financial incentives to help them expand. Perry’s economic vision is the kind of race-to-the-bottom mercantilism we’ve come to expect from developing nations in the globalized economy, although, as China, Brazil and India illustrate, many such nations have begun to provide citizens with more schooling and better jobs as they grow wealthier. No comparable developments can be seen in Rick Perry’s Texas.