Evolution

[Meadow337]

Meadow why are you coming back to points answered by beer good and myself while refusing to answer simple questions?

It's a very juvenile form of argument.

a. because I already answered. asking the same question in a different form won't make me answer it.

b. because YOU think a thing is answered does not mean it is.

Now that I have the time to look for a few references seeing as you refuse to believe that there is active discrimination against people who dare question evolution

1. There is an entire movie on the subject called "Expelled: No Intelligence Required" which highlights individual cases of scientists forced to leave their positions.

2. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcaldwell.php

3. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcrocker.php

4. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/...eliefs-stirs-controversy-at-emory-university/

5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2088557/posts

There are many more, but don't tell me it doesn't happen. It does.

If there are no valid questions about evolution - why is any one so poop-in-their-pants terrified if people question it or ask that their children be given a balanced perspective on it? Surely such a well proven set of facts has nothing to fear from honest questions? One would expect the scientists examining the theory are asking the selfsame hard questions and even harder ones in their search for truth. But if they have to defend THEIR truth, as opposed to THE truth, by silencing everyone who might question it, then what we have is not truth but propaganda.

 

[Conscious Bob]

So, when this happens naturally, and the changes are the result of natural selection, what happens to the "original" animal? Does it typically become extinct because the new animal is better equipped to survive? Are there exceptions?

A species may be very successful and there will be many animals, this forms a large gene pool. Some of these animals may adapt to different environments while the original species continues to thrive, this is known as radiation. A species will die out if it cannot tolerate changes in it's environment but if radiation is applicable, it may leave descendants.

 

[753C]

If there are no valid questions about evolution - why is any one so poop-in-their-pants terrified if people question it or ask that their children be given a balanced perspective on it? Surely such a well proven set of facts has nothing to fear from honest questions?

I do wonder about this. I have seen it first hand with teachers that I know. It is definitely a more emotionally charged subject for a lot of educators than it should be.
And I do know that there have been eminent scientists who believe in intelligent design, some are even Nobel Laureates. If these members of the scientific community are willing to accept that possibility it seems that educators should at least put forth the fact that there are alternative schools of thought on the subject.

 

[Conscious Bob]

a. because I already answered. asking the same question in a different form won't make me answer it.

b. because YOU think a thing is answered does not mean it is.

Now that I have the time to look for a few references seeing as you refuse to believe that there is active discrimination against people who dare question evolution

1. There is an entire movie on the subject called "Expelled: No Intelligence Required" which highlights individual cases of scientists forced to leave their positions.

2. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcaldwell.php

3. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcrocker.php

4. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/...eliefs-stirs-controversy-at-emory-university/

5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2088557/posts

There are many more, but don't tell me it doesn't happen. It does.

If there are no valid questions about evolution - why is any one so poop-in-their-pants terrified if people question it or ask that their children be given a balanced perspective on it? Surely such a well proven set of facts has nothing to fear from honest questions? One would expect the scientists examining the theory are asking the selfsame hard questions and even harder ones in their search for truth. But if they have to defend THEIR truth, as opposed to THE truth, by silencing everyone who might question it, then what we have is not truth but propaganda.

If the educators answer questions about intelligent design/ creationism in the way you do, that may be part of the answer. There is no evidence for intelligent design.

What does DNA do and how do humans breed dogs, something simple.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I do wonder about this. I have seen it first hand with teachers that I know. It is definitely a more emotionally charged subject for a lot of educators than it should be.
And I do know that there have been eminent scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, some are even Nobel Laureates. If these members of the scientific community are willing to accept that possibility it seems that educators should at least put forth the fact that there are alternative schools of thought on the subject.

There's no scientific evidence for intelligent design and like every theory it has to be subject to the same scientific parameters. Scientists entertain all sorts of notions but I don't recall a Nobel Prize being awarded for breakthrough work proving Intelligent Design...

 

[753C]

There's no scientific evidence for intelligent design and like every theory it has to be subject to the same parameters.

I am not saying you need to change the laws of science, or teach an alternative theory that doesn't have the main body of science behind it. I'm just saying I think kids should at least be made aware that there is disagreement about the subject. Mainly because of what a hotly debated issue it is and also because, whether origin of life theories are part of evolutionary theory or not, whenever you open up the study of evolution, there is the cosmic soup, which if I am not mistaken has about as much evidence to support it as intelligent design. It seems disingenuous, and maybe a little bit political. People blindly lump the "life sprouting from soup thing" together with evolution and give it at least as much validity because of how it's taught. If you ask the average person who made it through high school how we got here, according to science, they will say something like "well, it started off with this soup..." I know I thought that was the scientific position for most of my life.
Do you see where I'm coming from, or am I way off base?

 

[beer good]

REALLY? so evolution does not postulate we evolved from unicellular organisms with no way of actually showing how it happens? And don't quote the flipping 'tree of life' at me. When that is drawn up by the very same people who propound the nonsense how can it be taken seriously? That's like asking a flat earther to draw a map of the world. You can be 100% sure its going to be flat. The origin of the thing makes it automatically suspect.

Uh, yes it does. If you read the sentence you quoted again, and the context in which it was made, you'll know that I was talking about the origin of life - ie the point where we went from "dead rock" to "existence very primite life" (such as single-cell organisms). The theory of evolution is about what happens once life exists and starts developing. Hence the name of it.

 

[beer good]

1. There is an entire movie on the subject called "Expelled: No Intelligence Required" which highlights individual cases of scientists forced to leave their positions. There are many more, but don't tell me it doesn't happen. It does.

I'm sorry if I was unclear; I wasn't asking about people being let go from positions because they refuse to do the job they were hired to do, I was asking what proof they offered that led to them being fired. Just like I expect a history teacher to not teach children that the holocaust didn't happen, or a medical professor to not teach that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, or a sex ed teacher to not teach that children arrive by stork, I would expect a science teacher to teach what can be proven. If they've finally come up with any proof against evolution that actually holds up, it would be nice if they took five minutes off from their coffee-snorting, knee-slapping, rolling-on-the-floor expressions of hilarity at how easy it would be to disprove evolution and actually present that evidence. And no, simply refusing to look at the existing evidence and deliberately misunderstanding the current scientific consensus doesn't count.

Here's a good page about Expelled, by the way.

If there are no valid questions about evolution - why is any one so poop-in-their-pants terrified if people question it or ask that their children be given a balanced perspective on it?

If 9/11 actually happened the way they say it did, why are people so afraid of letting schools teach alternative theories? If the holocaust actually happened, why are Jews so pissed off every time someone claims it didn't? What do they have to fear from honest questions?

People aren't afraid of creationists asking the same "questions" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. They're just sick and tired of them pretending the questions are never answered.

 

[beer good]

So, when this happens naturally, and the changes are the result of natural selection, what happens to the "original" animal? Does it typically become extinct because the new animal is better equipped to survive? Are there exceptions?

Depends entirely on the situation. Again, the fact that some Englishmen emigrated to America didn't mean the English became extinct. The entire history of life on earth is one of diversification - ie one species often gives rise to several different species, some of which may remain closer to whatever you consider the "original" than others. Say you have a population of similar animals that get separated from each other for a few hundred thousand or million years for some reason; the ones that remain in the original habitat will have no need to adapt as long as it remains the same, the others will either have to adapt or die out... and after a while, you'll have two separate species.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I am not saying you need to change the laws of science, or teach an alternative theory that doesn't have the main body of science behind it. I'm just saying I think kids should at least be made aware that there is disagreement about the subject. Mainly because of what a hotly debated issue it is and also because, whether origin of life theories are part of evolutionary theory or not, whenever you open up the study of evolution, there is the cosmic soup, which if I am not mistaken has about as much evidence to support it as intelligent design. It seems disingenuous, and maybe a little bit political. People blindly lump the "life sprouting from soup thing" together with evolution and give it at least as much validity because of how it's taught. If you ask the average person who made it through high school how we got here, according to science, they will say something like "well, it started off with this soup..." I know I thought that was the scientific position for most of my life.
Do you see where I'm coming from, or am I way off base?

It's a question of definition, theories in science can and do conflict. physicists are having a hard time reconciling The General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics even though there's hard science backing them both up. This isn't the same for The Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design because the former is backed up by science but the latter isn't.

Intelligent Design sounds like science but is in fact a belief. By all means I recognise there's a debate but it's not between two competing theories.

 

[753C]

Depends entirely on the situation. Again, the fact that some Englishmen emigrated to America didn't mean the English became extinct. The entire history of life on earth is one of diversification - ie one species often gives rise to several different species, some of which may remain closer to whatever you consider the "original" than others. Say you have a population of similar animals that get separated from each other for a few hundred thousand or million years for some reason; the ones that remain in the original habitat will have no need to adapt as long as it remains the same, the others will either have to adapt or die out... and after a while, you'll have two separate species.

Gotcha. That makes sense, and thank you for the answer. It seems that this debate has gotten a little heated! That is ok though because I am learning a lot from both sides.
My next question is what are the theories that explain why humans seem so far advanced from an intellectual standpoint compared to the rest of the animal kingdom? Why are we so different? Did something happen to compound our development? Or are we not as smart as we think we are? Lol.

 

[753C]

It's a question of definition, theories in science can and do conflict. physicists are having a hard time reconciling The General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics even though there's hard science backing them both up. This isn't the same for The Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design because the former is backed up by science but the latter isn't.

Intelligent Design sounds like science but is in fact a belief. By all means I recognise there's a debate but it's not between two competing theories.

My apologies, I wasn't completely clear there as I just read the scientific definition of the word theory. Bear with me.
So Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, I understand that, but the spirit of what I was trying to say was that because of the sheer amount of debate regarding the subject matter, it is a little different then, say the Theory of Relativity. I think educators do children a disservice by not at least mentioning that there are strongly opposing schools of thought on the subject even if these schools of thought are not supported by the main body of science. I mean, why mention the soup? It's hypothetical too at this point isn't it? Is it allowable because it sets up evolutionary theory?

 

[Meadow337]

My apologies, I wasn't completely clear there as I just read the scientific definition of the word theory

And one of the proofs of scientific theory is that it has to be shown to be true through experiment - once again where is the experiment that proves evolution? No?

How is that Scientists accept they don't know everything about everything and allow rigorous debate on other topics - but evolution - total blindspot. No questions. Not even from other scientists!

FYI some of those examples of people being asked to leave their positions were not because they taught anything 'wrong' but simply believed that evolution was not the full answer to everything. One of them - incredibly (because the counter to this is always 'it didn't happen') even had proof of the universities stance on the matter. Try READING some of the links especially when you asked for them.

Even when you show them it DID happen - again there is the blindspot. Nope we are not boneheaded stubborn idiots determined to wipe out all opposition by removing those voices in positions of authority who might be listened to. Lesson 101 in propaganda - marginalize and trivialize dissenters.

You heard of the phrase "methinks they protest too much"? The moment there is an irrational OTT response to silence strong voices in opposition to something I ask myself why.

FYI people who ask serious questions about 911 or historians looking at events in the Second World War aren't being hounded out of their positions for holding 'wrong' beliefs. If they were I would also be asking what the issue is. What is being hidden? What are they are afraid of being exposed?

 

[Conscious Bob]

My apologies, I wasn't completely clear there as I just read the scientific definition of the word theory. Bear with me.
So Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, I understand that, but the spirit of what I was trying to say was that because of the sheer amount of debate regarding the subject matter, it is a little different then, say the Theory of Relativity. I think educators do children a disservice by not at least mentioning that there are strongly opposing schools of thought on the subject even if these schools of thought are not supported by the main body of science. I mean, why mention the soup? It's hypothetical too at this point isn't it? Is it allowable because it sets up evolutionary theory?

If the advocates of Intelligent Design restricted themselves to parts of science we don't have evidence for that would be acceptable but they don't.

 

[Conscious Bob]

And one of the proofs of scientific theory is that it has to be shown to be true through experiment - once again where is the experiment that proves evolution? No?

How is that Scientists accept they don't know everything about everything and allow rigorous debate on other topics - but evolution - total blindspot. No questions. Not even from other scientists!

FYI some of those examples of people being asked to leave their positions were not because they taught anything 'wrong' but simply believed that evolution was not the full answer to everything. One of them - incredibly (because the counter to this is always 'it didn't happen') even had proof of the universities stance on the matter. Try READING some of the links especially when you asked for them.

Even when you show them it DID happen - again there is the blindspot. Nope we are not boneheaded stubborn idiots determined to wipe out all opposition by removing those voices in positions of authority who might be listened to. Lesson 101 in propaganda - marginalize and trivialize dissenters.

You heard of the phrase "methinks they protest too much"? The moment there is an irrational OTT response to silence strong voices in opposition to something I ask myself why.

FYI people who ask serious questions about 911 or historians looking at events in the Second World War aren't being hounded out of their positions for holding 'wrong' beliefs. If they were I would also be asking what the issue is. What is being hidden? What are they are afraid of being exposed?

Let's see, Theory of evolution, experiments on inheritance, discovery of DNA, current genetic technology. Idiots screaming about preservation of the species while clever people grow GM crops and breed florescent dogs. Have I missed anything?

 

[Meadow337]

Yup like one actual experiment that proves species change from one kind into another. Still waiting on that one, along with the rest of the world.

 

[Meadow337]

If the advocates of Intelligent Design restricted themselves to parts of science we don't have evidence for that would be acceptable but they don't.

So you admit there are things science doesn't have answers for? Now I'm done with this conversation. Every time I say that very thing, you have some answer which are the same unprovable answers with the same lack of evidence as any evolutionist trots out without ever addressing the bits that there aren't evidence / proof of, and yet here you are admitting that there are things science doesn't have evidence of. Incredible. Now why won't you accept the quotes I gave from scientists saying the exact same thing?

Bah! This is the point at which I lose interest rapidly.

I will stick with my assertion that there are many things that even a non-scientist can observe in the world that contradict evolutionary theory.

I will continue to believe that while proponents of evolution persecute people at all levels from students to professors for simply believing something is lacking in evolutionary theory that they are more interested in protecting the theory than genuinely exploring those areas that are open to debate. And that is not good science!

 

[Conscious Bob]

Yup like one actual experiment that proves species change from one kind into another. Still waiting on that one, along with the rest of the world.

As the theory states that big genetic change's happen over many thousands of years that's going to be a rather long experiment... How about the genomes of various creatures showing up divergence through comparison?

 

[Conscious Bob]

So you admit there are things science doesn't have answers for? Now I'm done with this conversation. Every time I say that very thing, you have some answer which are the same unprovable answers with the same lack of evidence as any evolutionist trots out without ever address,ing the bits that there aren't evidence / proof of, and yet here you are admitting that there are things science doesn't have evidence of. Incredible. Now why won't you accept the quotes I gave from scientists saying the exact same thing?

Bah! This is the point at which I lose interest rapidly.

I will stick with my assertion that there are many things that even a non-scientist can observe in the world that contradict evolutionary theory.

I will continue to believe that while proponents of evolution persecute people at all levels from students to professors for simply believing something is lacking in evolutionary theory that they are more interested in protecting the theory than genuinely exploring those areas that are open to debate. And that is not good science!

Never denied it in actual fact in saying that evolution doesn't have an answer for origin I'm the first person to flag it up. The scientific community must all be involved in a big conspiracy eh...

 

[Meadow337]

As the theory states that big genetic change's happen over many thousands of years that's going to be a rather long experiment... How about the genomes of various creatures showing up divergence through comparison?

And that is the issue! Countless experiments with thousands of generations of fruit flies (chosen because their lifespan is mere hours) is yet to produce a single organism that is not 100% a fruit fly. Deliberate outside gene manipulation does not in any way prove that total natural selection ever results in the kind of change to the organism that even vaguely points at its ability to ever produce some other kind of organism. Even that idiot, Dawkins, recognises that.

I entirely fail to understand why this is so utterly hard to comprehend. No new species or even a hint of change that would lead to a new species has been observed. And I don't mean a 'new' species that biologists label a 'new' species when it is still observably a fruit fly / bacteria / whatever. Show me one instance where it is observed in any way that ANYTHING changes into something completely different.

Ignoring origin of life for a moment and why that in itself is a huge thorn in the side of evolution - evolution still says we all came from the same unicellular organisms - which means that at some point these changed into completely different organisms - and yet it can not show even one instance of this happening.