Anti-Evolution Legislation Shows Descent With Modification

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Well yes, you could substitute anything really, which is what you did, and which makes the comparison nonsensical. So if you are going to compare, make sense, this is a subject that requires sense, not idiotic comparisons between things as akin to each other as pebbles and boulders.

But that's what you're doing--claiming a bacterial mutation may (there's that qualifying word again) contribute in some way to a biological process that creates entirely new forms of life. You are applying the micro to the macro in ways that aren't necessarily warranted.

I'm not denying that evolution may in fact be part of what's happening (or even all of it), but you run around acting like you know for a fact that it is (and that's all it is), when you have no way of knowing if that's really the case.

And you sell it as fact. As Truth. That's irresponsible and it's bad science. So much so that it ceases to be science and evolves into propaganda.

If you want to make the claim that micro and macro are separate processes and not merely taxonomical terms, please provide evidence showing the specific genetic barriers that cannot be breached by known genetic factors and requires a separate process to complete.

More nonsense brought forth by the great fabricators of fairy tales to somehow force people to believe the nonsense they believe by drumming it into the heads of the young and impressionable.

Basically effecting the inside of people's heads without cutting their heads off like those Islamic zealots.

No real difference there.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights....

...prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion...WHAT DOES THAT SAY???...

If faith without logical thought, or without actual true first hand knowledge is all you have to bring to the table...

Well...


Baby steps toward a theocracy.

Bad.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

It can't be questioned

It can. All you have to do is provide evidence of a counter hypothesis or theory. Can you do so?

Look at the evangelical evolutionists around here who bash people with their Darwin bibles if they disagree

The only bashing is in regards to poorly framed arguments with nothing to support them in the way of evidence. Supposition and conjecture are not how we build a hypothesis.

The grand pooh bahs of all things pertaining to evolution won't even entertain the idea evolution may be wrong.

We entertain all lines of evidence and data. None has shown evolution to be wrong. It is the most researched and evidenced theory in the history of science.

It's not a science if it's protected like a fundamentalist religious belief

It's not protected in any such fashion. Please feel free to obtain an appropriate degree, do the work, provide the evidence and present it for review. 18 years ago I was mocked in grad school for hypothesizing about hybridization between HS and HN because I couldn't prove it with the current level of testing available. After increasing the sensitivity of genetic testing, we now know that things we hypothesized about in the 90's is now a fact. If the evidence supports the proposition, it will be accepted. So please, by all means, provide evidence for a counter hypothesis or theory. Otherwise you're bouncing from strawman to strawman.

Scientists are cowering away from the challenge of dissecting evolution. Every bone ever found now is another proof of evolution, every new discovery is worked into being a proof of evolution.

Not at all true. In Anthropology, we welcome all challenges. The problem there is that in my experience, the counter argument is hyperbolic conjecture and is never supported with facts or data. See, that's how science works... if new evidence proves to be correct upon review, then we update the paradigm. The evidence has to be there, it has to be reproducible independently and that never appears.

Never hear anymore, we have found something we don't understand and we are confused, all we hear is, it's proof of evolution

Then you're not viewing the same sources that other people are. I'm constantly reading papers about new finds where they discuss the possibilities of what the implications MAY be as well as discussing how much more research and more corroborating data is needed to fully understand how or where this find may fit in.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

More nonsense brought forth by the great fabricators of fairy tales to somehow force people to believe the nonsense they believe by drumming it into the heads of the young and impressionable.

I am neither young nor impressionable. When I was, I did my best not to believe in evolution, because I preferred to believe the religious narrative. Dinosaurs and weird prehistoric creatures scared me. So did the idea of living in caves and being preyed upon by sabre-toothed tigers. So did those yawning gulfs of time, hundreds of millions of years that made my young intelligence quail before them.

Most frightening of all was the thought that I had evolved from animals, and that all those animals were, in a sense, somehow inside me.

I had changed by mind about most of this by the time I was twenty. This wasn't because I found the evolutionary narrative convincing but because the religious one was so evidently contrafactual. The story didn’t stand up.

But it was not until I read The Selfish Gene at the age of about 27 that I really came to understand the concept of evolution by natural selection. Once understood, acceptance was immediate; it not only fit the facts, it explained so much.

So I know from intense personal experience that you are wrong.

The theory of evolution is not easy to understand. I should say that many of you will never understand it. It is almost certainly too difficult for someone who compares education to beheading and is able to say

No real difference there.

Sir or Madam, that was by some distance the stupidest thing I have ever read on Above Top Secret, where people say egregiously stupid things a hundred times a day.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Oh there there

It can't be a science if it's above criticism,

It's kind of like global warming, nobody can question it

They can question it with evidence proving otherwise and accounting for current evidence, or accept the consensus and direct their criticism elsewhere.

Simple as that.

It can't be questioned

It can be questioned. It can't be questioned without a valid supporting argument with evidence, however.

Look at the evangelical evolutionists around here who bash people with their Darwin bibles if they disagree

I haven't seen these "evangelical evolutionists", only people who understand the science and try to educate the unwilling..

he grand pooh bahs of all things pertaining to evolution won't even entertain the idea evolution may be wrong.

They don't anymore, because it has been proven right. In the beginning it wasn't accepted as right until enough evidence was accumulated, we are well passed that stage now. By this point in time, every piece of evidence fits the theory perfectly. Why would you entertain the idea it wrong when literally everything shows it is right?

It's not a science if it's protected like a fundamentalist religious belief

It's not protected in this way at all. It is upheld as scientific certainty, according to the scientific method. It is the ongoing collaborative work of many fields of science that make evolution a science by definition. It is not protected, anyone can gain an education in a relevant field and do their own research and experiment to question it.

Scientists are cowering away from the challenge of dissecting evolution. Every bone ever found now is another proof of evolution, every new discovery is worked into being a proof of evolution.

Scientists don't cower away from dissecting things; dissecting things is their job!. Evolution has been recorded, dissected, measured, calculated, examined, researched, reproduced, pulled apart and put back together, and you know what? It survived unscathed.

If "every bone ever found now is a proof of evolution", and does fit with evolutionary theory, how does that count against the theory? Doesn't that demonstrate that is right? Every discovery is not "worked into being a proof", if it is examined and subsequently provides more proof, this demonstrates the theory's strength. That is how scientific theory is substantiated.

Never hear anymore, we have found something we don't understand and we are confused, all we hear is, it's proof of evolution

So you want us to go back to a past level of lesser biological and scientific understanding, because we no longer are confused about life on earth? Pretty anti-intellectual and anti-scientific raggedy.

A commonly used tactic by anti-evolution supporters that you have indulged in here, is to attempt to undermine not just the scientific evidence, which stands on its own, but also the scientists who perform the experiments and record the results.

It's more about "scientists cower from dissecting evolution" and "everything is worked into a proof" and "evangelical evolutionists hit you with a darwin bible", than about a properly objective systematic analysis of the theory for you at this point. It betrays your paranoid, conspiratorial tendencies, and your prejudice towards higher learning and scientific inquiry in general.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Scientists are cowering away from the challenge of dissecting evolution.

RIDICULOUS. No. They are not.

Every bone ever found now is another proof of evolution, every new discovery is worked into being a proof of evolution.

Yes, it is.....

Never hear anymore, we have found something we don't understand and we are confused,

YES, WE DO!!!! Every week there are articles about "new jaw bones cause upheaval of current theory", etc.......

all we hear is, it's proof of evolution

It is proof of the ability of the discipline of SCIENCE to be skeptical of its own findings, and to investigate any DISCREPANCIES.

The scientific community is the most open-minded faction of our professional class.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
...prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion...WHAT DOES THAT SAY???...

It simply says that you can't make laws based on things that require faith, since it can't be verified, whether for or against them. People are free to worship and follow their systems as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, but you can't make laws to force folks to follow any particular religion (and can't make laws against one either). Separation of church and state is actually the opposite of theocracy. It seems your slippery slope actually goes up hill.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It can't be questioned

I love it when people say this line. Hey pal. You JUST questioned it. Right here. Clearly it can be questioned.

Look at the evangelical evolutionists around here who bash people with their Darwin bibles if they disagree

The grand pooh bahs of all things pertaining to evolution won't even entertain the idea evolution may be wrong.

Nice straw man there.

It's not a science if it's protected like a fundamentalist religious belief

Scientists are cowering away from the challenge of dissecting evolution. Every bone ever found now is another proof of evolution, every new discovery is worked into being a proof of evolution.
Never hear anymore, we have found something we don't understand and we are confused, all we hear is, it's proof of evolution

You know what I never hear? A creationist look at the evidence and admit that he may have been wrong about evolution. But I DO hear a lot of hot air and fallacies from them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hey Krazy....there are a lot of people here that simply do not understand how "the scientific method" works....tell them to ask any scientist who has had the guts to propose his own theory, and to place it in a published form. there is an intense amount of scrutiny, let alone the usual back-biting, name-calling, and disgust that it brings from others in the same field of study.

It's funny, no matter what happens, there is one in every thread with the same ol tireless strawman arguments about evolution that have been debunked for years, yet not a single one ever addresses the actual evidence.

"Evolution is just a theory"

"OMG you can't prove the origin of life"

"I KNOW evolution is wrong" (then won't explain why)

"Evolution cannot be proven! If it's proven then show us the proof" (then somebody posts proof and it is blindly dismissed / rejected as "that's not proof" again with NO explanation as to why these thousands of scientific research papers on evolution are wrong)

"There are too many holes in evolution!" When asked specifically to list the holes and gaps, we hear crickets.

These guys just read these things on religious web blogs and without doing an ounce of research about evolution, just assume it's all true with no scrutiny whatsoever. It's kind of sad at this point that people still cling to literal interpretations of ancient texts as more valid than proven verified science.

Yeah, just pile on. I explained the analogies. Don't bother entertaining a contrary viewpoint that questions your coveted science religion. Just keep hammering on one inarticulate statement.

This typifies the position exactly. The problem is that there is NO CONTRARY VIEWPOINT to evolution. There is not a single piece of genetic, biological or geological evidence that suggests anything BUT evolution. You can't reject science without an alternate theory or evidence that contradicts it. You might as well be claiming that gravity or heliocentrism is false. It's funny how they don't criticize any other scientific fields or studies EXCEPT big bad EVILution because it goes against fundamentalist interpretations of a religion. Grow up, your religion is 1000 times more absurd than the theory of modern synthesis. Instead of attacking it, why not see what we can learn from it or explore how god could have created evolution?

the only way bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics is through evolution.

Micro-evolution at it's best also known as adaptation, when you study this long enough you can't deny that happens.

Macro-evolution where asexuals turn into females and males at the same time to mate in perfect synchronization across the entire spectrum of biology is in question however ? Where are all the fossils showing not just one missing link but thousands. Oh yeah "Punctuated equilibrium" another fantasy theory on par with the theists claim that the world is 6000 years old. Look at the faults of both sides of the argument and you might arrive closer to the truth of our real history of our planet, not one conjured up by fundamentalists or Darwin.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You just listed a bunch of things that you appear to have a problem with (read: you don't understand them in reality) yet don't actually list what it is that is wrong with those ideas. Great post there. You contributed nothing to the thread and just reinforced what everyone knew about your side of the debate further.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

the only way bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics is through evolution.

Micro-evolution at it's best also known as adaptation, when you study this long enough you can't deny that happens.

Macro-evolution where asexuals turn into females and males at the same time to mate in perfect synchronization across the entire spectrum of biology is in question however ? Where are all the fossils showing not just one missing link but thousands. Oh yeah "Punctuated equilibrium" another fantasy theory on par with the theists claim that the world is 6000 years old. Look at the faults of both sides of the argument and you might arrive closer to the truth of our real history of our planet, not one conjured up by fundamentalists or Darwin.

As has been asked numerous times in several thread including one just for the topic, please describe in detail the mechanisms that make micro and macro evolution separate process and specifically what definitive barriers exist that differentiate one species from the next and require a separate process to overcome. Afterwards, then go into detail explaining how certain species can crossover any definitive barrier, which is required to show micro and macro as separate processes, which in turn produces offspring.

a reply to: Cypress

please describe in detail the mechanisms that make micro and macro evolution separate process

Coles notes version of the answer.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

a reply to: Cypress

Also, please explain the flaws in the idea of punctuated equilibrium that make it an unrealistic theory on par with young earth creationism.

PS: Cypress, that wasn't directed at you. I'm piggy backing off of your request.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Cypress

please describe in detail the mechanisms that make micro and macro evolution separate process

Coles notes version of the answer.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

You didn't provide what Cypress was asking for. You just described what they are. We all know what they are, so please tell us how one (microevolution) cannot lead to another (macroevolution). What process or barrier prevents many microevolutionary changes from compiling into macroevolution?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually I posted an opinion, you just don't like it, and disagree with it, which is fine.
But your tone indicates you would like everybody to be a clone and think like you do, with that last post.

That would make for a really boring thread.

Of course we should teach evolution. It's a great theory with so much evidence, fossils etc.

Otherwise, what do you teach? Genesis? Not a Christian so won't stand for that garbage.

It's the same with Man Made Global Warming. You have to teach it...theory is scientifically as sound as Evolution. What else would you teach besides science? Fairies make snow and heat depending on how many kitten's die?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Of course you posted an opinion. That was obvious since nothing you said in that post was factual or based on facts. Duh.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Cypress

please describe in detail the mechanisms that make micro and macro evolution separate process

Coles notes version of the answer.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

What is the specific barrier that stops micro evolution below the macro level? This is required to show them to be different processes rather than just different stages of the same process (evolution).