Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
- Thread starter Mr.Right
- Start date
- Banned
- #282
There's no question at all about the evidence for biological evolution among the relevant science community.
You may have missed it but the science deniers are exclusively the more excitable of the religious extremists. I suppose folks like you need a special exception from having to live in a reality based world view.
eots
no fly list
however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory
- Banned
- #284
So.. we're to assume that your conspiracy is that the entirety of the relevant science community has fabricated the various disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., just to perpetuate Darwinian theory?
How do people like you function on a day to day basis?
eots
no fly list
How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. (Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548)
Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78)
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Dude, it's 98.6% NOT a coincidence.
Moreover, as primates, we share many characteristics with other primates, and ONLY other primates, such as:
Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
Color vision
Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
Grasping fingers aid in power grip
Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads (fingerprints) on digits
Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
Prolongation of postnatal life periods
Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
Complicated social organization
We are primates descended from ancestors in common with Chimpanzees and Bonobos, bubba. And no amount of denial is going to change this, the most documented fact in all of science.
eots
no fly list
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution
Mr.Right
Guest
- Mar 19, 2015
- 1,659
- 231
- 65
- Thread starter
- #288
I didn't watch that because my WiFi can't handle it, but I assume it mentions the proliferation of genetic diseases over the last century or so. I think this is proof that man has not been around as long as evolutionists claim. The number of genetic errors we're seeing would have wiped us out long ago.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Erm, (cough), ahem. A 1980 book? Really? Pal, genetic science has advanced by orders of magnitude since 1980. You didn't know this? huh.
eots said:
There are no authorities in science, dude, only experts.
eots said:
Gee, now I know you are desperate, because you have resorted to the old creationist standard of quote mining scientists, which is the height of dishonesty in your ranks. What you conveniently leave out that Orgel was a die hard evolutionary scientist. In face, he devised several general biochemical rules that are in use today. They are:
Orgel s rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
1) "Whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient a protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient." This "rule" comments on the fact that there is a great number of proteins in all organisms which fulfil a number of different functions through modifying chemical or physical processes. An example would be an enzyme that catalyses a chemical reaction that would take place too slowly to benefit an organism without being sped up by this enzyme.
2) Evolution is cleverer than you are."
Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.
Orgel's rule can also be used to counter creationist arguments in which often the hidden and non-provable presumption is suggested, that human intelligent planning is in general superior to trial and error strategies used by evolution.[citation needed]
The same principle has been given as an analogy to software developed in an evolutionary sense by group collaboration, as opposed to software built to a pre-ordained design that was created without reference to previous implementation. Although, the development is not claimed to be of the same random nature as is by evolutionary genetics.
However, Orgel would never have reduced evolutionary theory to "trial and error". The complexity and evolving nature of evolutionary theory can be appreciated from Stephen J. Gould's late works.,[1][2] These works show that Orgel's second rule applies to evolutionary biologists as well as the general public, as he no doubt intended.
Moreover:
Leslie Orgel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
During the 1970s, Orgel suggested reconsidering the Panspermia hypothesis, according to which the earliest forms of life on earth did not originate here, but arrived from outer space with meteorites.
Together with Stanley Miller, Orgel also suggested that peptide nucleic acids - rather than ribonucleic acids - constituted the first pre-biotic systems capable of self-replication on early Earth.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
You need to provide a different link if you want people to see this video. It doesn't show up in my browser.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
John C. Sanford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I might add, that the (conservative) Dover trial judge rejected his arguments and ruled that Intelligent design was nothing more than creationism revised to make it appear to be more scientific than it actually is. He ruled that intelligent design is a religious belief, and is not science.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I might add, that the (conservative) Dover trial judge rejected his arguments and ruled that Intelligent design was nothing more than creationism revised to make it appear to be more scientific than it actually is. He ruled that intelligent design is a religious belief, and is not science.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
Interesting you mentioned finger prints.
That alone is proof that every human body is continually developing "new" characteristics from conception.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
All primates have them (but only primates have them), so they have been around for a very long time.
Human handprint on left. Ape handprint on right:
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Lordy, lordy, either you are as dumb as a rock, or you are addicted to lying. Probably both.
A few transitional fossils
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
And some interesting thoughts on peptides and protocells.
Steps towards the formation of a protocell the possible role of short peptides. - ResearchGate
- Banned
- #297
Oh good gawd, man.
John Sanford is a YEC'ist hack.
Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience
By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM
Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.
It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn’t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility – if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
(A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isn’t creationism, they’ve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
Here’s the summary:
Biological Information: New Perspectives
Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38
Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)
2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.
Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3
Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 930
- 245
- Banned
- #299
Encyclopedia of American Loons
Encyclopedia of American Loons 1107 John C. Sanford
John C. Sanford is a plant geneticist. He is also a young earth creationist, and as such one of the few creationists out there with real and even relevant credentials (and one of the few the Discovery Institute has found for their petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism). Indeed, Sanford has quite a number of real, peer reviewed publications – though none of them support creationism, of course – and was, in his time, assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell (now retired, but still holds a position as a courtesy associate professor), something that also made him unsuitable for that shining example of cherrypicking, Expelled, of course.
His involvement in the creationist conferenceBiological Information: New Perspectives, which privately rented a room at the campus of Cornell but advertised itself in a manner that made it look like a Cornell-sponsored conference, is a bit unclear, but at least he was a coeditor of the Proceedings, gave an introductory comment and contributed to several presentations. The conference, and the subsequent brouhaha over the fact that Springer seemed willing to publish the proceedings (in the end they didn’t), is discussed here and here. Here is a discussion of Sanford’s own comments on the issues.
As a creationist Sanford is perhaps most famous for his arguments for devolution, for instance in his 2005 book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, the idea being that mutations and natural selection do not account for the information in the human genome and that instead of evolution these mechanisms are causing devolution in accordance with the myth of the Fall (also here). Indeed, one of his main pieces of evidence for devolution is the decline in lifespans among Noah’s descendants, as described in the Bible – according to Sanford this “is one of the strongest, as a scientist, one of the strongest evidences for me that Scripture is telling us, not speaking figuratively, not speaking creatively, but telling us history. And it speaks of a decline.” Indeed. No paper promoting Sanford’s concept of “genetic entropy” has ever made it through peer review (though it made it into Don Batten’s 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe).
His other usual talking points should be familiar, and include references to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (blithely avoiding addressing the standard responses from real scientists).
Sanford was a relatively central witness for the creationists during the Kansas Evolution hearings. A transcript of his contributions ishere.
Diagnosis: A dangerously delusional fellow, Sanford is among the few in the religiously fundamentalist anti-science movement with real credentials (though apparently little real understanding), and as such he lends a little bit of credence to such denialism.
Encyclopedia of American Loons 1107 John C. Sanford
John C. Sanford is a plant geneticist. He is also a young earth creationist, and as such one of the few creationists out there with real and even relevant credentials (and one of the few the Discovery Institute has found for their petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism). Indeed, Sanford has quite a number of real, peer reviewed publications – though none of them support creationism, of course – and was, in his time, assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell (now retired, but still holds a position as a courtesy associate professor), something that also made him unsuitable for that shining example of cherrypicking, Expelled, of course.
His involvement in the creationist conferenceBiological Information: New Perspectives, which privately rented a room at the campus of Cornell but advertised itself in a manner that made it look like a Cornell-sponsored conference, is a bit unclear, but at least he was a coeditor of the Proceedings, gave an introductory comment and contributed to several presentations. The conference, and the subsequent brouhaha over the fact that Springer seemed willing to publish the proceedings (in the end they didn’t), is discussed here and here. Here is a discussion of Sanford’s own comments on the issues.
As a creationist Sanford is perhaps most famous for his arguments for devolution, for instance in his 2005 book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, the idea being that mutations and natural selection do not account for the information in the human genome and that instead of evolution these mechanisms are causing devolution in accordance with the myth of the Fall (also here). Indeed, one of his main pieces of evidence for devolution is the decline in lifespans among Noah’s descendants, as described in the Bible – according to Sanford this “is one of the strongest, as a scientist, one of the strongest evidences for me that Scripture is telling us, not speaking figuratively, not speaking creatively, but telling us history. And it speaks of a decline.” Indeed. No paper promoting Sanford’s concept of “genetic entropy” has ever made it through peer review (though it made it into Don Batten’s 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe).
His other usual talking points should be familiar, and include references to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (blithely avoiding addressing the standard responses from real scientists).
Sanford was a relatively central witness for the creationists during the Kansas Evolution hearings. A transcript of his contributions ishere.
Diagnosis: A dangerously delusional fellow, Sanford is among the few in the religiously fundamentalist anti-science movement with real credentials (though apparently little real understanding), and as such he lends a little bit of credence to such denialism.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
"According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution."
The U.S. ranks 33rd in acceptance of evolution Ranking America
Evolution is fact. Unless agreeing, say nothing instead, you're just embarsssing yourselves.
The U.S. ranks 33rd in acceptance of evolution Ranking America
Evolution is fact. Unless agreeing, say nothing instead, you're just embarsssing yourselves.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Illegals causing car crashes to sue and get payouts!!!
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 1
-
Democrat outreach for today with details and bullet points! Finally!- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 2
-
