Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?, page 13
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13    14    15    16  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 05:17 AM by DASFEX
Originally posted by rnaa

It does not explain the fossil record except to say God put it there.


And? Ya know what is so ironic is a 2000 year old book says the same thing. Now if you can go on making speculations as to some common ancestor, no one knows what it is or what it looked like without speculating on that too or having another entire fossil created around a toe nail and call it the missing link





The point is that when they say it, they are implying that Evolution does predict it. They are using it as "a gotcha".


Gotcha



But you want to replace a model that works for the entire observed world, (albeit slowly in your opinion), with a model that works for a tiny fraction of the observed world (that of selective breeding) and whose only recourse to anomalous data is to say "God works in mysterious ways". In this system, fraud and error can never be corrected, not in 45 years, not in 2 millennia.



I think any bad model is as worthless as none, and the one you say works has NO evidence NONE! Threre is absolutley NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrates evolution outside of what we have observed and i have already show, there is NO mechanism to enable it I have already shown DNA doesn't need to evolve. There is NOT ONE transitional fossil that can give ironclad proof when there should be as many as all those we happen to have that just happen to be fully formed and intact life forms



How many years did it take to expose the "Turin Shroud" hoax?.


Is it? You tell me.

www.pbs.org...

Ther latest dating applocations, science and technology has given the shroud its mystery and offers a compelling look into the resurection they have never considered before



And you like weasel words? How about the 3 Monasteries (at least) that claim to have the "real skull of John the Baptist". But one of them has his skull "as a teenager" - so its OK


Yeah that one was easy, but unlike you, I don't make excuses for fraud i think these people should be held accountable especially in Science where almost the entire text books are artists renderings of animals transitioning but without any evidence moreover you don't see many icons of religion grace the cover of National Geographic and USA Today where at least every other month NG does that and every other month later,, OoooPs,, another fake an a tiny retraction about the size of a postage stamp. I will say it again because you keep sugar coating this as "mistakes". They are NOT mistakes they are unethical spurious entries on to the mountain of BS they call evidence. They were pre-mediated some, were purchased from other forgeries and it has been found to be enough of a problem that the United States Senate found this to be the case also.

I don't bring them up because I have a problem with the dis-honesty among evolutionary science, I bring it up because their is not one iota of evolutionary evidence to substantiate trans speciation that I haven't seen and been able to show it is just another just so story or another fake. The Bottom line is this, If evolution was so much a fact, then why must they have to fake it to prove it.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DASFEX]



reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 07:07 AM by rnaa
Originally posted by DASFEX

I think any bad model is as worthless as none, and the one you say works has NO evidence NONE! Threre is absolutley NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrates evolution outside of what we have observed and i have already show, there is NO mechanism to enable it I have already shown DNA doesn't need to evolve. There is NOT ONE transitional fossil that can give ironclad proof when there should be as many as all those we happen to have that just happen to be fully formed and intact life forms


You are wrong. An incomplete model that describes known data and provides a basis to explain new data is better than a useless model that doesn't explain anything at all. This is how knowledge is advanced and new questions are concieved.

You are wrong. DNA does evolve. Many cases have been observed in even very short time periods, let alone followed in the fossil record. The tropical blue moon butterfly is just one case in point and represents the fastest evolutionary change ever observed. The evidence is undeniable except by someone with an agenda to deny.

You are wrong. There are many recorded "transitional fossils", however it is true that not every possible intermediate form is documented in the fossil record. It is ludicrous to expect otherwise. Out of hundreds of thousands, millions, even billions of individuals that once existed we see only a few tens or in some cases a few hundreds of fossils. Fossils are rare, conditions don't always exist to record every step.l


reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 02:32 AM by rnaa
Originally posted by DASFEX
Originally posted by rnaa
Originally posted by DASFEX
...that evidence was also a major concern of the late Stephen J Gould...


You really need to respect Stephen J. Gould and STOP invoking his work to justify your backwardness.

I quote SJG (emphasis mine):

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.

--- Stephen J. Gould in The Panda's Thumb


If there were any damn transitional fossils to write home about stephen j gould WOULD'NT HAVE HAD TO INVENT puntuated equilibrium.

Lets sum up shall we, I have given the lions share of data to back up my post while you have shown two frauds. Can you show me any evidence that supports your argument for such a thing as a transitional fossil you can say is unequivocally proof molecules to man evolution happens at all?

No more frauds or fakes please

oh yeah and about that reprisal for quoting gould .

apparently his quotes are for darwinian evolutionists only.

so call the quote police


Lets see if I can sum this up, so we can all move on:


  • You have demonstrated a lack of understanding about the theory you are criticizing.
  • I have attempted to educate you of a few points, but you have rejected my attempts.
  • You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the feedback loop mechanism built in to the scientific process to correct mistakes and identify fraud.
  • I have pointed out the existence of this correction mechanism, and you refuse to acknowledge that it exists, is a desirable thing, and offer no corollary in your proposed alternative.
  • You have made several assertions about lack of evidence for this, that, and the other.
  • When direct evidence is offered to counter your assertions you reject it out of hand as a fraud, but offer no proof or reasoning trail.
  • After rejecting out of hand all evidence against your agenda as fraudulent, you continue to ask for more evidence.
  • You have made several more or less vague accusations of fraud and but offer no proof or reasoning trail.
  • You have cited a recognized peer-reviewed scientist's work as eveidence for your case.
  • When that scientist rebukes you for misrepresenting his work, you insist that you understand it better than he (and thousand of other scientists in the field) does.
  • You consider all scientists as 'weasels' because they continue to do describe the limits of their findings and refuse to speak in absolutes.
  • You consider that you have more to add to the worlds knowledge base by speaking in absolute denial of explicit findings about the way the world works than those who work to show the wonder of creation in a comprehensive, coherent world view.


I just want to make sure that is all understood so we can move on to something else and not get caught playing infinite ping-pong with concepts.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by rnaa]


reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 03:33 PM by moocowman
reply to post by rnaa




# When direct evidence is offered to counter your assertions you reject it out of hand as a fraud, but offer no proof or reasoning trail. # After rejecting out of hand all evidence against your agenda as fraudulent, you continue to ask for more evidence.


Perhaps this is a good example of what Jaxon Roberts has recently described as "Fragile Faith Syndrome" ?



reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 03:04 AM by DASFEX
Originally posted by rnaa


  • You have demonstrated a lack of understanding about the theory you are criticizing.


Show me, the demonstration, NO ONE has an understanding of this hypothesis because it keeps re-inventing plausible mechanisms that we have to learn as the old ones are proven wrong or required to pass critical review. I had left so many examples of that in these last pages yet you couldn't address them and continued using examples to links where EVERY SINGLE ONE on the wiki page had been debunked and NO ONE knows beyonf their own interpretation of the fossil record what kind of spin you can put on it to shoehorn it into fitting the evo theory.



When that scientist rebukes you for misrepresenting his work, you insist that you understand it better than he (and thousand of other scientists in the field) does.


Stephen J Gould is dead so he never said a thing about todays creationist YOU said I was and the only fit you could make with that was the same prejudice and discrimination the US congress found Evolutionary science guilty of, about creationists, we see you aren't above that sort of thing either.

The idea a scientist would even suggest creationists are mis representing his quote is hilarious when All I have to do is ask you. Did he or did he not express disallusion and disappointment that haekel's fraudulent embryo's were still being taught and utilized in current images and text books as if nothng is wrong and no one says a damn thing about it.

Just because you can say the words quote mining doesn't mean my quoting him was not right in line with the same anger and dissappoinment this science is still using the unethical hacks, tweaks, fudged computer models using a guided hand spelling out a target and the benefit of knowing the number of letters to render an answer for mutations and natural selection to arrive at a new species. The aimless brainless model was free on a CD and came with the book the Blind watch maker.

Ironically the default sentence "Me thinks it's a weasel" that is in the text box for the mutation model to calculate how long it would take and how many generations of mutations would have to be realized and fit.

Trouble is, Natural selection doesn't have the benefit of knowing what it is supposed to spell nor is does it get to know when it is accomplished.

This was the biggest embarrasement for Dickie Boy Dawkins regarding the blind watchmaker and complete with is book, came the very computer model software player that would prove the entire book a sham

You consider all scientists as 'weasels' because they continue to do describe the limits of their findings and refuse to speak in absolutes.


No I accused YOU of using weasels but didn't call anyone "A" weasel"and I don't care of a million people all believe something that is not true, it is still not true no matter who they are or how many. Evolution has more high hurdles to climb than any of the so called mountain of evidence you suggest is out there supporting it.

I am still asking, show me the mountain, and what do you keep showing me? someones speculations on a fossil. Even that butterfly was micro evolutionary adaptation already inherant in the Butterfly's DNA


You consider that you have more to add to the worlds knowledge base by speaking in absolute denial of explicit findings about the way the world works than those who work to show the wonder of creation in a comprehensive, coherent world view.


I'm in denial? ha ha how do you know YOU aren't?

I am not adding anything I am just questiong how you can be so easily impressed with a science without empiracle evidence, without proof prima facie evidence and suggeting we should accept the speculations of a biased construct of science such as evolution, I just don't see how you can subject yourself to such a preposteruous idea this is anything more than a stupid hypothesis and should have died back when Haekel cheated to keep it going.



I have attempted to educate you of a few points, but you have rejected my attempts.


No I debunked them IPSO FACTO. If I am going to be taught anything, at least know more than I do and you don't.


You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the feedback loop mechanism built in to the scientific process to correct mistakes and identify fraud.


No I haven't, I have exploited its bandaid and the problem is serious and done with criminal intent and it is rampant among evolitionary sceince.


When direct evidence is offered to counter your assertions you reject it out of hand as a fraud, but offer no proof or reasoning trail.


There was no evidence to reject, any scientist that says "could have been" "we can imagine" that or it is quite possible or it is believed etc.

I don't want to have science taught as if all the players were on a damn ouija board or getting there conclusions from a magic 8 ball.


Between the two of us I have given more data to back my research and my argument while you have just sent a link to wiki about another list of fabled transitional forms.

We see you have dino to birds, one of the most far reaches of the imagination with two diamtrically opposing arguments regarding metabolism and warm and cold blooded creatures. The dino to bird believers have show many fossils they claim are transitional however all of them were complete and intact BIRDs or Dinosaur and none can be proven. This is just more just so story's. In fact that entire list you shows was given as an example in the evolution is just a theory thread and the whole list was debunked.

For example: The evolution of the horse.

the evolution of the horse' has been portrayed as one of the best documented proofs of evolution. Four-legged mammals which lived at different times have been lined up, from small to large, and these "horse series" exhibited in museums of natural history.

Recently however, has revealed that the creatures in the series were not one another's ancestors, that the sequence is gravely mistaken, and that the creatures portrayed as the ancestors of the horse actually emerged after the horse. This id evolutionists never having to say they were wrong back when we argued those same supscions and they came back with similar ideas you have used to suggest if I only understood evolution, I would somehow agree with you, the other and more likely answer is that YOU need to start looking at this stuff as a skeptic and quit using arguments that assume evolution is true from the start. No scientist honestly admits to that stuff off the record and when you hve seen as many arguments for it come and go as I have, it is rather awkward or me to put into words how wet behind the ears you are without you having a clue how many times I have seen all these tactics you are using to criticize things that for some reason, they all of a sudden are the Roberts Rules for formal debate when the ground rules you listed there are irrelevant

  • You have made several more or less vague accusations of fraud and but offer no proof or reasoning trail.


    • When a professional scientist finds a tooth and builds an entire missing link to man and the tooth wasn't even a humans much less a neanderthals. The idea that the skull, jaw, browbone posture of this missing link was on display where they made the bones look just like those they WOULD have found had they actually found a full skeleton of java man but they didn't. Even the wiki page you gave, you expect me to consider all those artists renderings a GOOD SCIENCE??

    Yeah, when I saw you kept glossing over the examples I DID referance with links to the white papers or website lab etc,. never addressing all those, I quit furnishing them, since I had been the only one using quotes from actual college text books, Government congressional websites and many scholarly weblinks to corroborate most of my arguement, when all you have done is exascerbate your own argument using examples of the very icons of frauds I was warning of.

    Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, most evolutionists admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt.

    After rejecting out of hand all evidence against your agenda as fraudulent, you continue to ask for more evidence.


    I have never been shown any evidence in the first place. and of the several references you gave, they were debunked long ago by your own evolutonist scientist's You got Johnson and that is basically all they haver have. Oh and that list of flowery phrazes about how elegant Darinism is and the old 9 out of 10 atheists agree etc.


    reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 08:42 AM by rnaa
    reply to post by DASFEX
    originaly posted by DASFEX
    For example: The evolution of the horse.

    the evolution of the horse' has been portrayed as one of the best documented proofs of evolution...

    Recently however, has revealed that the creatures in the series were not one another's ancestors, that the sequence is gravely mistaken, and that the creatures portrayed as the ancestors of the horse actually emerged after the horse.


    The original sequence of which you complain was set up in 1870's - almost 140 years ago - and less than 20 years after "The Origen of Species". Why are you surprised that new information has come out to correct the picture? In 1870 physics was still Newton and nothing else. Is Newton and all of else in physics wrong just because we now have quantum mechanics?

    Please see: Horse Evolution

    from the summary of the above link - emphasis is mine
    Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

    Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernible "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

    The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.



    This id evolutionists never having to say they were wrong back when we argued those same supscions


    Scientists say they are wrong ALL THE TIME. It is one of the most fundamental precepts in Science. It is nonsense for you to deny this and adds nothing to your credibility to assert that they don't and then cite specific examples of their corrections as proof that those corrections don't happen.


    and they came back with similar ideas you have used to suggest if I only understood evolution, I would somehow agree with you,

    I don't necessarily want you to agree with me, I doubt that will happen. But you would be better armed to discuss the issue if you had some idea about the scientific method and the theory you want to dispute. For example, the horse issue is NOT a problem because some guy got it wrong 140 years ago. It is a problem because Creationist won't acknowledge that it has been corrected over 40 years ago, and in fact the 140 years of research on that specific problem has strengthened the overall theory, not weakened it.


    the other and more likely answer is that YOU need to start looking at this stuff as a skeptic

    I am in fact, an extreme skeptic. I have a bumper sticker above my desk that reads "Question Authority". But you can't redo everyone else's work from scratch. So what if quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, it provides real world results that are useful in the every day world.


    No scientist honestly admits to that stuff off the record...

    I am sure that even you know that that is hogwash and are just being argumentative. Or perhaps you are not looking at your favorite mentor's assertions as a skeptic? For example, you should be skeptical when somebody tells you that corrections don't appear in text books for 40 years. It is relatively easy to check that out.


    reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 10:28 PM by DASFEX
    reply to post by rnaa


    *sigh* I have shown you so many REAL facts that prove evolution CAN'T HAPPEN! The area of Science they will not go abiogenesis for obvious reasons and one of the most easily tested and having the most profound and damaging conclusions to your tree is DNA.

    It just can't work. It never did, it never does and it never will

    Sense & Nonsense in Horizontal Gene Transfer


    What do most scientists do when faced with findings that threaten to topple the ruling paradigm? They describe the findings in detail, fail to interpret them correctly, and avoid discussing their practical implications, dismissing incriminating evidence. They try desperately to paper over the cracks of the crumbling edifice and engage in rampant speculations. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho challenges these scientists to tell the truth, to themselves and to the public.

    Horizontal gene transfer - the transfer of genes across distinct species including those in different kingdoms - goes counter to modern genetics and to the theory of evolution. In the case of evolution, both the general theory of evolution - that different organisms descended with modification from earlier common ancestors - and the special neo-Darwinian theory - that organisms evolve by the natural selection of random genetic mutations - are under threat.

    www.twnside.org.sg...



    18 July 2007
    Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism


    Natural selection …is not the fundamental cause of evolution.

    Masatoshi Nei

    Science continues to destroy Darwinism. A prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences, Masatoshi Nei, trashed neo-Darwinism in the recent peer-reviewed article: The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution.

    Haldane’s dilemma showed mathematically that natural selection could not be the major driving force of evolution. Haldane’s dilemma lead in part to the non-Darwinian theory of molecular evolution known as the “neutral theory of molecular evolution”. Neutral theory asserted natural selection was not the principal driving force of molecular evolution. However, when molecular neutral theory was presented to the world in the 1960’s, it was politically incorrect to assert the obvious consequence of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, namely: morphology, physiology, and practically anything else made of molecules would NOT be principally shaped by natural selection either.



    What are the speed limits of naturalistic evolution?,

    And if Haldane’s dilemma were not enough of a blow to Darwinian evolution, in the 1960’s several population geneticists like Motoo Kimura demonstrated mathematically that the overwhelming majority of molecular evolution was non-Darwinian and invisible to natural selection. Lest he be found guilty for blasphemy, Kimura made an obligatory salute to Darwin by saying his non-Darwinian neutral theory “does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution”. That’s right, according to Kimura, adaptive evolution is visible to natural selection while simultaneously molecular evolution is invisible to natural selection. Is such a position logical? No. Is it politically and intellectually expedient? Absolutely

    www.uncommondescent.com...

    Unanswered Questions


    Here are four common questions asked about the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

    1) How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? It Doesn't.

    2) How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly? An example is the Cambrian Explosion. It Can't.

    3) How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started? It couldn't.

    4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes. These are not enough to account for the complexity of the organism. What is the other 98% of the genome's function? We don't know.


    Falsifiability

    Karl Popper raised the point that for a theory to be science, it has to be falsifiable. We have no method to falsify the theory of Darwinian Evolution suggesting that it is a belief rather than science.

    Ill go one further than Popper regarding Darwinian evolution.

    It's a religion, a cult, the apostate church, the great whore and the biggest hoax perpetrated in the history of man and it needs to stop.


    [edit on 10-7-2009 by DASFEX]


    reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 01:03 AM by DASFEX
    I HAVE GIVEN YOU A PLETHORA OF FRAUD
    Proven the defacto modus operandi of evolutionary scientists is a science that has been working on top of so many hoax's so much fudged data, fragged an freaked fossils, ambiguous definitions of terms even THEY are saying need to be cleared up so even they know which evolution each one of them is talking about.

    I have shown you DNA doesn't work that way and that Natural Selection works best when explained by the man who first wrote about it, Creationist Lord Blythe. As BIG a deal as atheists make of Darwin and his theory, Modern Science is saying get REAL!

    Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT

    [/One of New York’s foremost brain surgeons, Dr. Michael Egnor, has repeatedly pointed out why Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine. See: Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?.

    And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology. In the recent editorial Does Medicine without Evolution Make Sense? MacCallum writes:

    Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution “antibiotic resistance” is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals. Despite potentially valid reasons for this oversight (e.g., that authors of papers in medical journals would regard the term as too general), it propagates into the popular press when those papers are reported on, feeding the wider perception of evolution’s irrelevance in general, and to medicine in particular
    b]


    Does Medicine need Darwinism? Or Does Darwinists need the credibility of Medical Science and want to embed their dogmatic religion in Modern Medicine. They have a number of Doctors supporting this asininer idea but the lions share of the Medical Community is saying Back The Truck up Chuck.

    She also reports on the protests from medical students who find themselves forced to study Darwinism for no good reason. In reading the excerpt below, ask yourself, “why is it that a campaign has to be waged to teach Darwinism in science classes.” Do we need campaigns to teach the theory of gravitation or the periodic table?:


    Randolph Nesse (University of Michigan) and colleagues think otherwise [2], and have been campaigning for evolution to be recognized and taught as a basic science to all medical students (see also the Evolution and Medicine Network,     www.evolutionandmedicine.org...). It has been more than 10 years since he and George Williams published their classic book Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine [3]. Other landmark texts linking evolution to health have been written since then, with new editions on the way [4], and the research field is blossoming. Still, as Nesse mentioned at the start of the York meeting, there are only a handful of medical schools in the United States and in the United Kingdom with an evolutionary biologist listed as such on the faculty.
    …
    the hardest task in adding evolutionary/Darwinian medicine to medical curricula may well be soliciting support from medical students. Although Paul O’Higgins thought a comparison of the brachial plexus to the pentadactyl limb was helpful, not all his students agreed…complaints were lodged that he was forcing evolution on them


    I can see this alliance becoming darwinist's biggest and most formidable antagonists are Doctors who are pissed off at the total lack of utility that is Darwinian evolution, the ONLY real utilility it serves is to advance the religion of athesim and as we have seen so often, that is exactly what it is used for most to explain away God.

    But Darwinism isn’t just irrelevant to medicine, it’s irrelevant to most anything practical. Even Jerry Coyne admits Darwinism’s lack of utility. See: "in science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom".if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits and

    In contrast, the design paradigm moves forward at one of America’s most prestigious universities. In Wanted: Biologists who can speak "math," engineers fluent in genetics we learn:

    One-third of the engineers at MIT now work on biological problems, according to biology professor Graham C. Walker, MIT

    This demographic development has great significance to the ID movement because the design mentality is inherent to the engineering discipline. The two scientific disciplines most noted for sympathy toward ID are medicine and engineering. Both are more respective of Christianity and are beginning to tire of listening to crybaby militant atheists who just got there video the "God that wasn't there" Grown men acting like kids taking the blaspheme challenge as if anyone gives a rats ass.

    If you don't believe in God, then why would you have to prove it?

    Engineers, those who make a living studying the science of design are now invading biology in larger and larger numbers. The emerging discipline of Systems Biology, a design-friendly discipline which investigates biology from a design perspective, will eventually dominate the way biology is done from now on.

    One thing I like about the way engineers are dealing with the Darwinists and their typical tactics of ridicule is they tell them "enjoy your view while you can, because we intend to put science back where it belongs, among scholars and not children constantly calling people names.

    In contrast, the discipline of Evolutionary Biology (with the exception of fine fields like Population Genetics) evolutionary science is living on borrowed time and the mountain of evidence is named Mt. Saint Helens and she is about to blow out all the crap they dumped inside her.

    They will possibly decline in prominence and they have already lost most of their prestige because they just don't take serious the charges of fraud and do nothing about it when it is happening everyday just to save an atheists dream. It is killing science as a whole.

    What a wonderful thing! Darwin fanatics trying to further their agenda by forcing already overburdened medical students to enroll in an irrelevant line of study. I can’t think of a better way for chance worshippers to alienate themselves even further this is, purely and simply, driven not by any need for doctors to study evolutionary biology at length but rather driven by an agenda of forcing the study of a widely and increasingly rejected philosophy onto an audience that neither wants it or needs it.

    [edit on 11-7-2009 by DASFEX]


    reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 05:43 AM by rnaa
    reply to post by DASFEX

    Part 1



    *sigh* I have shown you so many REAL facts that prove evolution CAN'T HAPPEN!

    Really? I must have missed that. Perhaps if you try again...


    Te area of Science they will not go abiogenesis for obvious reasons

    Evolution does not address abiogenesis because it starts from an assumption that life exists.

    Life exists. Life evolves. Get over it.


    and one of the most easily tested and having the most profound and damaging conclusions to your tree is DNA.
    It just can't work.

    What doesn't work? DNA or the visualization of evolution as a tree? The evolutionary tree is as outdated as is the visualization of an atom as a electrons in orbit around a nucleus. But that doesn't negate its usefullness as a visual aid as long as the limits are understood.


    You really should take your own advice and look at some of your claims with a skeptics eye. Wikipedia an be your friend:

    Horizontal gene transfer - the transfer of genes across distinct species including those in different kingdoms - goes counter to modern genetics...In the case of evolution...and...neo-Darwinian theory...are under threat.

    No they are not. HGT does not weaken Evolution, it enriches it.


    Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism
    ...A prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences, Masatoshi Nei, trashed neo-Darwinism in the recent peer-reviewed article: The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution.

    Nei is an evolutionist. His work involves finding statistical methods for evaluatin data and testing the predictions made by the theory. He may very well have findings that correct earlier ideas, but that is the function of science, not a trashing of the theory.


    Haldane’s dilemma showed mathematically that natural selection could not be the major driving force of evolution

    Even Haldane didn't believe this and knew it would corrected. In fact, he made several invalid simplification assumptions that when corrected presented no such dilemma.


    Haldane’s dilemma lead in part to the non-Darwinian theory of molecular evolution known as the “neutral theory of molecular evolution”.

    OK. Maybe. So?


    Neutral theory asserted natural selection was not the principal driving force of molecular evolution.However, when molecular neutral theory was presented to the world in the 1960’s, it was
    politically incorrect to assert the obvious consequence of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, namely: morphology, physiology, and practically
    anything else made of molecules would NOT be principally shaped by natural selection either.

    That's just nonsense. Neutral theory posits that there are a great number of 'near-neutral' molecular evolutionary changes that produce a correspondingly large gene pool. At some point in time, some set of those 'near-neutral' changes may prove to be advantageous, and then natural selection kicks in to filter out the less advantageous. The theories are not only complementary, but reconciled.

    Political correctness does not have anything to do with the slow response to Nei's work. Many theories take years to gain traction in the scientific community. Copernicus wasn't the first one to propose a helio-centric solar system.

    response continued in next post
    Pages: <<  10    11    12    13    14    15    16  >>    ^^TOP^^



    EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
      Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
    "I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
      Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
    Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
      Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
    The meaning or point of existence or life
      Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags