U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnel: 'Evolution is a myth.'

I think it's a fair statement if you consider the oddity that humans seem to be the only highly intelligent species on the planet despite us evolving from monkeys.

I just think we need to first change God with a capital to 'G' to gods with a small 'g', re-examine our history, and open our minds to the possibilities of some ancient genetic tampering to account for the anomaly that is us.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Humans are not the only intelligent animal on the planet. Look at ants, bees, spiders, dogs, cats, etc. They're all intelligent. Ten myths about evolution
We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn't evolve from them.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Sorry, sounds like adaptation to me, survival of the fittest.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[4]

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Quadrivium


Seems your learning. Have you ever heard of the Cain toad in Australia? Since it's introduction it has no real predators because of because of poison it uses for self defense, the ability to multiply more than any other creature native and eat pretty much anything is crazy!

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Seems your learning. Have you ever heard of the Cain toad in Australia? Since it's introduction it has no real predators because of because of poison it uses for self defense, the ability to multiply more than any other creature native and eat pretty much anything is crazy!

yeap, But that's not evolution or adaptation, that is STUPIDITY on mans part.

reply to post by Quadrivium


It does offer support to evolution. because of Eco systems can be fragile. Look at killer bees and how they mate with the queens of European hone bees.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Thanks for Clearing that up .

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Supports evolution?
Hmmm.. not so much.
Man Introduced the Cain toad to Australia and man bred the first killer bees. These seem to be very poor examples.

reply to post by Rockpuck


It isn't solely about her "religious views"....the scrutiny directed at her because of her apparent disconnect with reality stems from there, and draws peoples' attention (hopefully) to just how batspit crazy she is about everything else.

Her political "platforms" are just pablum, dribbling out whatever canned phrases push the buttons...and, yes...that's "politics as usual". However, that's exactly the point. Looking over the "pledges"made , we see the same empty rhetoric that has become symbolic with eh "Tea Party"....designed to get everyone nodding in unison, but lacking in any actual PLAN of implementation.

It's saying, "I think everyone should pay lower taxes." (crowd roars, "Yay!!!")

"I think Government red tape, rules and regulations hurt business." (crowd roars, "Yay!!!")

So, from one side of her (and some Tea Party candidates') mouth(s), it is "I'll get Government off your backs!"

Other side of the mouth? We saw it, here...teaching "creation" in schools, for example. How will that be enforced??? Right....GOVERNMENT regulations!!

Shall we also discuss her OTHER feeble attempts at dictating "morality", like the masturbation and pornography imbroglio? What will it take? More regulations, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL line-walking/crossing, in trampling basic rights guaranteed by the very document these sorts wrap themselves up in, then ignore in favor of their personal biases. And those biases are sometimes nakedly evident, as seen in some of the less intelligent ones.

Frighteningly, for every one of her, or Sarah Palin, or Pat Robertson (just so it doesn't seem misogynistic, there are MEN equally as bad, too) exist many more with similar agendas. They do damage with less publicity, (under the radar, so to speak) unless someone cares to take time to expose them. She, and the two other examples mentioned above, make it easier to spot because they're so obvious. That way, they stand out, can be defeated and hopefully, aren't allowed to amass power with the "quieter" ones.

It's a start, and the less-obvious who claim to be "Constitutional protectors", but actually harbor an ulterior religiously-based agenda? Their time will come, as terms run out. Keeping them powerless, keeps them from any loathsome meddling in citizen's private lives.

reply to post by newBodyoldSoul


Because one side of the story is total B.S (creationism) and is akin to teaching kids about "fairies, unicorns and mythical men in the sky that create everything".

Evolution is a theory that is far from perfect but still manages to err along the side of logic, something that creationism cannot claim.

reply to post by newBodyoldSoul


Agreed! My only issue with the ID movement is that it's trying to place something that at best is distinctly not science and at worst is really really bad science in a science classroom. I may not share someone's faith, but I would never begrudge someone the tenets of that faith.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

 

Sorry, sounds like adaptation to me, survival of the fittest.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[4]

The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival.[5] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

It's right there in the first sentence of your own quote: "Adaptation is the evolutionary process..."

Adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest - these are all parts of the process of evolution. That evolution occurs is a fact. It is observable. The framework used to explain that observation is the theory.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hmm ... Last time I checked , the Theory of Evolution was just that , a Theory .

Creationists need to stop repeating this half-baked argument. A theory in science is backed up by facts and evidence.

Who are we to Question the Beliefs of a Fellow American in the Political Limelight ?

I really do hope this is sarcasm.

It's A Free Country , if you somehow feel offended by her Beliefs , then don't Vote or Listen to her

If you felt offended by the OP, then you shouldn't have replied to it. You're clearly missing the point of a free country-She is free to express her beliefs, just as people are free to criticize her beliefs.

and in the mean time , try getingt a freakin Life .....

How exactly is this relevant to the topic at all? That sounds like something a child would say.

It's right there in the first sentence of your own quote: "Adaptation is the evolutionary process..."

Adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest - these are all parts of the process of evolution. That evolution occurs is a fact. It is observable. The framework used to explain that observation is the theory.

Yea I saw it, but Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing. If all Evolution boiled down to was Adaptation I would have no problem with it.
When you get to the point in the Evolution Theory that begins jumping from Adaptation to speciation is where I start losing interest. We see signs of Adaptation all around us. I have yet to see REAL proof of speciation.
Like I said earlier I do not think it is possible that we Adapted from pond scum.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Yes, but I said 'highly intelligent'... If ants had little cars or little airplanes or we saw they were creating little clothing lines and moving away from ant-hills to tiny little developed houses... that would be one thing... Animals may be intelligent on some level... but the level of intelligence in humans is so far advanced, even though we supposedly all came from animals.... Our high level intelligence is an anomaly.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Here is a great video discussing ants and why I made that comment earlier.
It will blow your mind!

video.google.com...#

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

Here is a great video discussing ants and why I made that comment earlier.
It will blow your mind!

video.google.com...#

Wow, I have to say... this is a pretty amazing video... I had no idea that ants actually corralled little domesticated bugs like little herders... very cool... I'll have to keep watching...

reply to post by Quadrivium


Apparently, perhaps, you aren't looking hard enough:

I have yet to see REAL proof of speciation.

Of course, ANY proof could stare you in the face, and if disinclined to "believe" it, can be "hand-waved" away, I suppose. Sad,that would be, if it occurs.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

....but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

There's a very important point, there, as well...not mentioned.

....it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event ...

....because, not only did MOST happen in the past, but it also takes a very LONG time. It isn't something that occurs "overnight", nor even within the lifespan of the organisms involved. Humans are limited by ~70 to 80 years of total lifespan...barely half of THAT can be devoted to such scientific studies.

Nature has the advantage, here....MILLIONS of years, and countless BILLIONS of individual organisms, all interacting in incredibly complex ways. Plus, the completely random chance of cosmic radiation influence, at the genetic and cellular levels...there is still a great deal to learn and understand about those effects. And how powerful they are (or not).

I'd suggest (I won't copy/paste the snippets) further research, from the Berkeley link, provided therein:

Further Reading

• Modes of speciation

• Allopatric speciation

• Peripatric speciation

• Parapatric speciation

• Sympatric speciation

• Reproductive isolation

• Cospeciation

• Speciation in plants

Probably didn't need to make all those links handy for everyone, but who knows?? Maybe (just to steer this back to topic), maybe Mrs. O'Donnell will stumble by, and read and learn something?

Perhaps, in some alternate reality.......

reply to post by The Sword


Right. Good defense.

So how did it all get started? The Big Bang Theory?

You can not create something from nothing. We don't know what that something is, therefore we shouldn't ride around on high horses name-calling those who don't agree to our beliefs. Like I said, I believe in evolution, but there's plenty of things evolutionists do that piss me off in regards to "belief systems".

And whats so wrong with thinking we were CREATED to EVOLVE?

reply to post by newBodyoldSoul


What created God? God couldn't come from nothing. Look over your logic here!