- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri Bill Would Warn Parents of Evolution Boogeyman
Posted on 2/21/14 at 5:36 pm to TigersforEver
Posted on 2/21/14 at 5:36 pm to TigersforEver
quote:I agree with this. Too many people say that to be anti-creation is to abandon all science but there are too many examples that disprove this. I will say that you have to perform mental gymnastics to fit evolutionary evidence into a YEC worldview.
but I am saying that doing so, by itself, would have no impact on, say, one's surgical skills.
I certainly didn't need to know anything about evolution to be a mechanical engineer.
Slate had an article on this in the past couple of days.
0
Posted on 2/21/14 at 6:05 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
your case has only been to say it isn't
quote:Again, make the latter case.
my soon-to-graduate biology major daughter probably knows more about biology than anyone living 30 years ago. And evolution is in the center of that change.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 6:41 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:No more so than any litany of terms.
It's an invented term used strategically by creationists to put proponents of Evolution and an equal playing field with them, by making it seem a religion.
It's disingenuous.
E.g., Dawkins is an evolutionist. David Evans, the nitwit claiming evolution as the unifying principle in the study of biology is an evolutionist. Individuals for whom evolution is an obsession are evolutionists.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 6:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
make the latter case.
quote:your turn to say why it isn't since you are the one outside the lines.
A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 7:48 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin.
your turn to say why it isn't
My turn to say why something that is true, isn't?
We were discussing evolution by natural selection being THE unifying principle in the study of biology.
You proposed you were father of a biology major who knows more about biology than anyone living 30 years ago, and evolution is in the center of that change. Based on that promise, I was so looking forward to something more than a reiteration of something obvious >30 yrs ago.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 8:57 pm to Tigah in the ATL
All evidence presented by Darwinism suffers from the same problems. It is rife with unscientifically supported assertions as fact. Nested hierarchies, phylogenetic trees, fossil arguments, and vestigial organs, all stem from the same assumption, that is similarity equals relatedness, thus common descent. These arguments are not subject to any kind of non-biased scientific method. They are merely assumptions. There is no way to reliably test the theory since everything is assumed to be related. Missourians are quite correct in qualifying and monitoring the presentation of this scientific "fact" to their children
Posted on 2/21/14 at 9:04 pm to mattloc
quote:Actually the beauty of Darwin's work is it suffers little of that.
Darwinism suffers from the same problems. It is rife with unscientifically supported assertions as fact.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 9:23 pm to NC_Tigah
All the evidence presented by Darwinism is decimated by the fact that there is no observable, testable, reason to believe that one animal can evolve into another kind of animal. Until that ability can be shown, all arguments are merely examples of circular reasoning. One must assume the conclusion before even having any evidence to support that conclusion. That is not a valid scientific process. Darwinism is at best, a pseudo-scientific conclusion.
All cases of speciation result in the same kind of organism. In spite of thousands of generations of lab experiments, microbial life is still microbial life and nothing more, even though scientists define that microbial life as different species. A microbe is still a microbe, and there is no scientific reason to think that it will ever be anything more than a microbe, no matter how long you wait and observe.
All cases of speciation result in the same kind of organism. In spite of thousands of generations of lab experiments, microbial life is still microbial life and nothing more, even though scientists define that microbial life as different species. A microbe is still a microbe, and there is no scientific reason to think that it will ever be anything more than a microbe, no matter how long you wait and observe.
This post was edited on 2/21/14 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 2/21/14 at 10:06 pm to mattloc
quote:
ll the evidence presented by Darwinism is decimated by the fact that there is no observable, testable, reason to believe that one animal can evolve into another kind of animal. Until that ability can be shown, all arguments are merely examples of circular reasoning. One must assume the conclusion before even having any evidence to support that conclusion. That is not a valid scientific process. Darwinism is at best, a pseudo-scientific conclusion.
All cases of speciation result in the same kind of organism. In spite of thousands of generations of lab experiments, microbial life is still microbial life and nothing more, even though scientists define that microbial life as different species. A microbe is still a microbe, and there is no scientific reason to think that it will ever be anything more than a microbe, no matter how long you wait and observe.
so much blatant ignorance of the topic you are commenting on. its sad really. Its not called speciation if it results in the same animal, dimwit.
explain what are ring species then...there are plenty of examples of this phenomenon in the Himalayas, Appalachians, Sierra Madre.
Id really love to hear you opine on this.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 10:19 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I just don't understand why the parents can't tell their kids to learn the material enough to regurgitate it back on the test, but that's not what they believe in.
Wait...you want parents to........be parents?
This post was edited on 2/21/14 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 2/21/14 at 11:30 pm to Cruiserhog
Ring Species....there is no reason to believe that the differences between so called "ring species" are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding population. Because there is no evidence of any such information adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution.
Speciation ....since you so obviously lack basic reading comprehension skills, I will spell it out for you ....the speciacition I referred to, is that attempted in experimentation by scientists. Which, as I pointed out, has been an abysmal failure through thousands of generations.
Speciation ....since you so obviously lack basic reading comprehension skills, I will spell it out for you ....the speciacition I referred to, is that attempted in experimentation by scientists. Which, as I pointed out, has been an abysmal failure through thousands of generations.
This post was edited on 2/21/14 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 2/21/14 at 11:39 pm to emcee422
quote:
"Evolution is not taught in the Bible so it shouldn't be taught in the class," parent Brandon Eastwood told the station. "Even if I had to spend some time in jail I wouldn't subject my kids to that nonsense."
The fact that there are large numbers of people in our society who think like this is absolutely terrifying.
This should not still be happening in a first world country in 2014.
Posted on 2/21/14 at 11:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
On one hand you have zealots saying "Evolution by natural selection is the unifying principle in the study of biology"
Funny, this is exactly what Francis Collins believes. You know, the world-renowned physician and geneticist who also happens to be a devout Christian.
In fact, I'm not sure I've heard any expert in the field ever describe evolution as anything other than a unifying principle in biology.
Additionally, the national science foundation considers it one of the four pillars of modern biology.
This post was edited on 2/21/14 at 11:48 pm
Posted on 2/21/14 at 11:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Cells, DNA, heritably, anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, etc., are all core to biology. They are all 100% teachable with ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLUTION. Evolution OTOH cannot be taught without knowledge of many of those elements.
This is like saying you can teach kids physics by just giving them the formulas. Sure you can do it, but it doesn't provide any sort of overarching understanding.
How many people who are much smarter than you are going to declare "FOS" before you start considering that maybe you're the one who needs to open a textbook?
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:00 am to TigersforEver
quote:
For example, if you have two physicians, one a YEC and one an evolutionist, but they have the exact same level of knowledge and expertise with regard to their profession, then their metaphysical beliefs would not make any difference.
While technically true, the likelihood of a person who believes evolution is a flat out lie reaching the status of MD in this day and age are incredibly low. Anyone who has an MD has taken dozens of biology, biochemistry and genetics courses at a very high level of learning. It is virtually impossible to become that well versed on the subject and still deny evolution. It would be the equivalent of someone with a PhD in physics denying gravity.
You'd be hard pressed to find a qualified physician in any specialty who clings to YEC in 2014. I'm sure there are a few outliers, but you're unlikely to ever meet one.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:05 am to mattloc
quote:
....there is no reason to believe that the differences between so called "ring species" are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding population
Actually there is, because we can do little things like genetic analysis and chromosomal assays these days.
We know for a fact that there are salamanders in California who evolved separately from others in the region due to a gain of function mutation.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 4:45 am to emcee422
quote:
Is it though? You'll never convince the more orthodox of Christians, so why not let them opt their children out instead of arguing about not teaching it or worse bringing creation into the science classroom.
No matter what the law says they are able to "opt" them out...all they got to do is tell Billy that the government is forcing them to attend school and learn shite that is patently false. That way Bill can grow up ignorant as frick and hate the government just like mommy and daddy...hell, who knows....Billy might even rent a truck, fill it up with fertilizer and diesel fuel and bomb a day care center in a federal office building...that would make mom and pop dumbass proud I am sure....
Posted on 2/22/14 at 9:27 am to Roger Klarvin
Yet genetic analysis has raised more questions than it has answered"
The foundation of evolution theory, gradual modification over time, slowly transforming genes that already exist, cannot account for so called "orphan genes"......,genes without parents in every taxonomic group studied so far. Looking at it objectively, the theory of evolution has been falsified. You salamanders are still salamanders and there is no evidence that they will ever be anything but salamanders. As Darwin himself pointed out "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The foundation of evolution theory, gradual modification over time, slowly transforming genes that already exist, cannot account for so called "orphan genes"......,genes without parents in every taxonomic group studied so far. Looking at it objectively, the theory of evolution has been falsified. You salamanders are still salamanders and there is no evidence that they will ever be anything but salamanders. As Darwin himself pointed out "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Posted on 2/22/14 at 9:39 am to germandawg
This kind of thinking will be the undoing of this country.......Pseudo elitist presuming to know whats best for other peoples kids.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 11:01 am
Posted on 2/22/14 at 10:02 am to mattloc
quote:
Ring Species....there is no reason to believe that the differences between so called "ring species" are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding population. Because there is no evidence of any such information adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution.
complete and utter drivel, when two populations within a parent population can no longer interbreed that is a new species
and yes new genetic information is being exhibited since mutations have changed morphological, colors, size differences, habitat fitment. These new mutations prevent them from interbreeding. They are no longer genetically viable becaust the daughter species has expressed new and different genetic code.
...obviously you dont understand the definition of species and hence speciation...and there are hundreds of experiments of plant speciations done by those pesky scientist on talkorigins.com
again the thing is you dont understand the definition of species
even if you do believe, stupidly, like you believe that no new information is created then you have to accept descent with modification even still...because embryos in birds specifically develop teeth and tails, suppressed hox genes within the genetic code of ALL ANIMALS INCLUDING HUMANS from our dinosaur and reptilian ancestors. We humans additionally develop pharyngeal gill slits during development from our fish lineage and then we do this marvelous thing were we grow full body coats of hair in the womb and slough it off from our ape heritage. Perfect examples of suppressed gene activity from descent with modification.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News