Ron Paul Doesn't Believe In Evolution

Originally posted by Masterjaden
No, you cannot observe massive change over massive periods of time. No, evolution hasn't been close to proven.

So you honestly believe that small changes over large periods of time do not add up?

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, even the interpretation of the fossil record within the current paradigm doesn't prove evolution.

Are you a scientist? Have you studied the fossils yourself? Evolution is a process that is proven. Genetic mutations and other changes are passed down from parents to child. If a change helps the creature's survival it will stick around because of natural selection. Both of these concepts are proven, therefor evolution is proven. Obviously that doesn't mean that the entire theory of evolution is proven, as the theory has hypotheses involved that have yet to be verified, but for the process of evolution its a slam dunk in science. Doubting it, is the equivalent of doubting the law of gravity, and goes against the entire field of biology.

There are other explanations for all available evidences for MANY of the false paradigms that actually explain much of the evidence better and don't require the ignoring of some evidences like your glorious (sarcasm) paradigms that you have been indoctrinated into.

Surely you can provide the scientific evidence that explains it better than evolution

Originally posted by Domo1

I saw a thread earlier deriding people that didn't like Paul and blathering on about how many idiots there are in America that believe in Creationism. Guess who else does? Ronnie believes that evolution is just a theory (implying a theory isn't kinda a big deal - you know, gravity etc...) but will you die hards fault him for it? Of course not.

Whether a man believes in evolution doesn't change the fact that he's an excellent candidate for the presidency. You and your liberal a s s c l o w n friends need to relax about the mans personal beliefs. Isn't your side of the argument the same side that said Obama being a muslim probably doesn't matter? Even if that's not the case, you're undoubtedly a hypocrite elsewhere due to this simplistic attack on someones beliefs.

If you have a problem with Ron Paul being a creationist, prove him wrong. Be everyone's guests because this day and age, I can find more competent CURRENT research, studies, and findings that support the idea of creationism over evolution.

Perfect example; current high-end quantum physics is resulting in pre-programmed, or pre-set equation bases that are apparently part of the sub-layer of our conscious reality and are of unknown origin. The notion is that these equations, far beyond the Fibonacci Sequence, are impossible in nature being that chaos is the rule of nature and evolution. 'Survival of the fittest' is actually more along the lines of adaptation; however evidence that adaptation led to specization is unfounded in the fossil record...only assumption prevails.

UNLIKE the Theory of Gravity; which Ron Paul definitely believes in. While it is a theory; it's acting upon us and is proven to exist...we just don't know how. The opposite is true for the Theory of Evolution, it's not acting upon us and there is no proof of it doing so, however we're suppose to believe it's 100% true without satisfactory evidentiary support.

No, single one point mutations do not add up to create new functional proteins, new genes, new organs or body plans. We don't even know where the body plans are stored!
It's is nothing short of a quantum leap to go from single point mutations to the the manufacture of the above without the input of a crap load of new biological information. It's absolutely rediculous and ther is no evidence at all for it. It's an assumption. And one that does not fit the evidence.

Especially considering darwinism cannot acount for a even single protein.Did I mention this has been empirically proven?

The longest running experiments in neodarwinian evolution conducted by lenski have shown that the more beneficial mutations the more negative epistasis occurs. And No amount of tinkering with fruit flies for a hundred years has produced anything but a disabled fly.

Bacterial resistant strains have since been shown to lose out against thier unmutated parent strain when returned to an environment without the particular drug present.

In fact all experimental evidence of evolution has been the result of the loss of functions not a gain, you can't build another species by breaking things, which is what Darwinian evolution excells at. So yes it does do something but is extremely limited.

Variations produced by breeding have recently been shown by Swedish researchers to be epigenetic leaving the underlying DNA relatively unchanged.

The fossil record empirically shows that complexity and multiple body plans were present at the cambrian with most of the phyla appearing in this brief geological period of time. There was no gradual spliting of the phyla and no transitionals for any of the cambrian animals.

Then we have the enigma of the origin of biological information, nothing can account for this.

And how about this as an attempt to refute the claims of ID proponent Michael Behe.

www.genetics.org...

A hundred million years for two mutations, one to create a valid binding site the other to bind to it.

Some refutation that is, The history of primates is around 50 or 60 million years. So we have a few problems there.

So yeah Darwinism has more gaps than the fossil record.

Really, those who think they know biology really have no idea what they are talking about otherwise they may actually know some of these things. It's changed a lot in the last few years, get updated. Their are growing number biologist that don't buy into it. Within the next generation as more complexity is unveiled there will be even more.

I also have to say their are some scientist who refute both ID and Darwinism, and an even larger number outside of biology.

James Shapiro for example look him up, quite interesting.

It's always so black and white isn't it? Evolutionist vs Creationist. ID is not creationism either, this is just a tactic used by the Darwinists. Oh, and now the darwin lobby are equating global warming skepticism with creationism! Are you kidding me? Is this what science has become? Disagree and you will be persecuted fired and discredited, don't even whisper your doubts or else! This to me speaks volumes.

And Darwinism or Neo Darwinism does not have the monopoly on evolutionary theory , as I mentioned there are others who don't buy either argument.

Oh just one more thing, no we are not 96% genetically similar to chimps. We are not a hairs breadth away as has been drilled into the population. It's a ruse, compounded by the darwinian junk DNA Myth.

BTW Ron Paul is awesome, I wish I could vote for him.

Originally posted by Xterrain
Whether a man believes in evolution doesn't change the fact that he's an excellent candidate for the presidency.

I couldn't disagree more. Not believing in evolution is a direct link to your intelligence and knowledge of science, as it's beyond proven as a process in the scientific community. Would you vote for a candidate that denied gravity, nuclear fusion, or a non geocentric universe? Science is important and I feel any presidential candidate should care about it, otherwise who knows what funding will get a approved and what will get cut. Evolution isn't a personal belief, it's a field of science.

If you have a problem with Ron Paul being a creationist, prove him wrong. Be everyone's guests because this day and age, I can find more competent CURRENT research, studies, and findings that support the idea of creationism over evolution.

You can? Please post it. There is NO science anywhere that supports a creator, but there is TONS that supports evolution.

Perfect example; current high-end quantum physics is resulting in pre-programmed, or pre-set equation bases that are apparently part of the sub-layer of our conscious reality and are of unknown origin. The notion is that these equations, far beyond the Fibonacci Sequence, are impossible in nature being that chaos is the rule of nature and evolution. 'Survival of the fittest' is actually more along the lines of adaptation; however evidence that adaptation led to specization is unfounded in the fossil record...only assumption prevails.

That's a lie. Please provide your scientific evidence that suggests ANY of that.

The opposite is true for the Theory of Evolution, it's not acting upon us and there is no proof of it doing so, however we're suppose to believe it's 100% true without satisfactory evidentiary support.

Another lie. There IS proof that evolution is happening. You can measure the genetic changes from parent to offspring in ANY CREATURE ON EARTH. To disprove evolution, all you have to do is find a single organism that doesn't do this. JUST ONE. Try reading an actual science book instead of creationist propaganda.

Originally posted by slicobacon
The fact is there is NOT ONE single instance of cross species evolution, ever. There are some proven instances of ADAPTATION but evolution is merely a theory. Forget the missing link for man - there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of ANY living being adapting into another species. Period.

So until someone shows any proof of ANY species EVOLVING into another, it is merely a theory and opinion. So, since this basic point is completely missing, how can you fault someone for not buying into it?

I know, I know - your anti-christian therefore pro evolution and feel obligated to flame anyone not following your brainwashed opinions.

This, anyone who has studied the theory of evolution beyond saying evolution exists blablabla knows the theory is full of bunk. It's a pretty outlandish theory in itself.

Dr Paul did not say evolution doesn't exist. He said the theory of evolution is far from considered fact and he's right.

Ron Paul believes in the theory of evolution he is simply being manipulated by the noob element. The theory of evolution is pretty much unassailable and he knows it. The lunatic fringe are just looking for support.

No biggies:up

I've got news for you. I'm a staunch supporter of Evolution, but Dr Paul is actually correct.

It IS just a THEORY. It is far from being proved. That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution".

Even supporters of evolution concede that it's only a theory. I'm not sure why you are so insecure in your support of evolution that you seem to see someone who calls it a theory as a threat to the definitive belief system that non Christians have.

At least Dr Paul confirms it as a Theory. Romney won't even consider it, says he believes in Creationism.

Originally posted by Tiger5
Ron Paul believes in the theory of evolution he is simply being manipulated by the noob element. The theory of evolution is pretty much unassailable and he knows it. The lunatic fringe are just looking for support.

No biggies:up

i thought the video said he doesn't?

reply to post by Domo1

Because it's about as ludicrous as saying that the Earth is flat. You don't want a president like that, and again this thread is a response to another where Paul supporters gleefully ridiculed people for not believing in evolution.

NO NO NO!!! You dont want a president that maintains a secret kill list. What in the name of Go--Darwin is wrong with you.

And can you link us to a thread of Paul supporters who"gleefully ridiculed people for not believing in evolution"?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Xterrain
Whether a man believes in evolution doesn't change the fact that he's an excellent candidate for the presidency.

I couldn't disagree more. Not believing in evolution is a direct link to your intelligence and knowledge of science, as it's beyond proven as a process in the scientific community. Would you vote for a candidate that denied gravity, nuclear fusion, or a non geocentric universe? Science is important and I feel any presidential candidate should care about it, otherwise who knows what funding will get a approved and what will get cut. Evolution isn't a personal belief, it's a field of science.

What are the aforementioned candidate's foreign, domestic, and economic policies? More importantly, is the candidate you mention above for or against bombing the crap out of innocent civilians for the oil they happen to be standing on?

Ron Paul's stance on that is that it is wrong and America should stop murdering people for their natural resources.
Our sitting president's stance is that there aren't enough people he can murder. Think he believes in evolution or creationism?

Which one is better, now?

/TOA

Originally posted by babybunnies
It IS just a THEORY. It is far from being proved. That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution".

Please, educate yourself on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis. In science, you start with an assumption how something works; this is your hypothesis which has yet to be proved or disproved. Once enough facts, evidence etc. in favor of the hypothesis is gathered it becomes a scientific theory. So, I scientific theory is not how something might work, but how something works.

reply to post by Domo1


yes but he ISNT talking about unicorns and space aliens - he's talking about a normal subject that is only supported by tested hypotheses - and if you really think about it - from what you know it COULD go either way. all we really know is we see a common chain of development through most species on this planet, as to explain their diversity. but this doesn't really support much else that everyone gets so offended about, like feeling humans have an "OBVIOUS" evolutionary link to primates, which we do not. i think it's great to see someone state their beliefs and not be afraid, but don't sit there and think you're mightier because you read a bunch of compiled books that you choose to believe (which coincidentally happens in the religious universe just the same, WEIRD)

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by babybunnies
It IS just a THEORY. It is far from being proved. That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution".

Please, educate yourself on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis. In science, you start with an assumption how something works; this is your hypothesis which has yet to be proved or disproved. Once enough facts, evidence etc. in favor of the hypothesis is gathered it becomes a scientific theory. So, I scientific theory is not how something might work, but how something works.

Not quite. Not all scientific theories are facts. They are the most plausible scenario, in the case of evolution, or why are we hear, it's not even close.

One of the things I learned over my many years, is that scientific thought and theory is constantly changing. Today, we think we know it all, just as in the past, scientists thought they knew it all.
The wise man acknowledges that he does not know it all, and that virtually everything is subject to change.
Last night, I watched a very interesting show on H2, The Universe: Microscopic Universe.
www.tvrage.com...

It shows how little we understand nature in general. I urge everyone that is interested in science and in this issue to watch the show.
One of the extremely interesting issues dealt with the bombardment of particles through two "slits" into a screen. Without going into the details, the results changed depending upon whether the scientist was viewing or not viewing the event. The conclusion that they reached was that these particles could actually go back in time, so to speak, and change their behavior. In fact, some scientists believe that this may be the key to going back in time.

Anyway, our view of scientific theory is based upon what evidence we have to view.
to ridicule someone for not believing in a scientific theory shows closed mindedness, and a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

By the way, in the 19th century, scientists firmly believed that man could never travel in a railroad train that traveled faster than 60 miles per hour, because all of the "oxygen" would be sucked out of the train, and the person would suffocate. So much for scientific certainty.

Watch the show, and you will begin to understand why this is not such a done deal.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by digital01anarchy

 

True, he does have a much higher level of education than I. Scary he doesn't believe in evolution with all that book learnin' huh? Just a stupid theory, like gravity.

Fact:

Gravity is a LAW and provable.
Evolution is a THEORY and improvable.

To treat a theory (educated guess) as a law and compare a theory to a law multiple times only shows an ineptitude on your part to separate the bias you feel towards those who believe differently then you.

Treat theories like theories because they are theories and treat laws as laws because they are laws and you will make for far better debate and growth with regards to this topic.

Accepting guesses as fact has been the plague of the scientific theory since its inception.

If science had taken Einstein's "theories" as "facts" (laws) were would present day physics be???

All scientific laws are proveable and repeatable, all theories remain theories because there is no way to proove them and repeat them in experimental and tangible ways.

I am a scientist, yet I do not believe in evolution becasue currently it is a guess and improvable and in fact does have evidence against it, even if that evidence is smaller in scope to the evidence that supports the guess, it is still a guess, no matter how many scientific LAWS you want to compare it to.

Did RP say he though gravity was a nice little theory? My guess is not, because like most educated people, he can tell the difference between the two.

God Bless,

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by babybunnies
It IS just a THEORY. It is far from being proved. That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution".

Please, educate yourself on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis. In science, you start with an assumption how something works; this is your hypothesis which has yet to be proved or disproved. Once enough facts, evidence etc. in favor of the hypothesis is gathered it becomes a scientific theory. So, I scientific theory is not how something might work, but how something works.

Not quite. Not all scientific theories are facts. They are the most plausible scenario, in the case of evolution, or why are we hear, it's not even close.

All scientific theories are BASED on facts, otherwise they'd only be hypotheses, but scientific theories contain all facts and hypotheses currently being investigated by biologists on whatever subject you are talking about. With evolution there is still plenty to be worked out, however the process itself has been proven to exist. The genetic mutations are measurable. Natural selection is observable. 1+1=2.

Originally posted by ElohimJD
Fact:

Gravity is a LAW and provable.
Evolution is a THEORY and improvable.

To treat a theory (educated guess) as a law and compare a theory to a law multiple times only shows an ineptitude on your part to separate the bias you feel towards those who believe differently then you.

Treat theories like theories because they are theories and treat laws as laws because they are laws and you will make for far better debate and growth with regards to this topic.

Obviously you don't really understand what a scientific law or theory is. A theory does not become a law when it accumulates enough proof. A law is a measurement that does not change. The law of gravity is PART of the theory of gravity, but they are 2 different concepts. Theories do not become laws, but they are indeed based on facts

I am a scientist,

Um, no you aren't and the entire following paragraph proves it by your complete misrepresentation of how the scientific method works. Nice try.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by babybunnies
It IS just a THEORY. It is far from being proved. That's why it's called "The THEORY of Evolution".

Please, educate yourself on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis. In science, you start with an assumption how something works; this is your hypothesis which has yet to be proved or disproved. Once enough facts, evidence etc. in favor of the hypothesis is gathered it becomes a scientific theory. So, I scientific theory is not how something might work, but how something works.

Not quite. Not all scientific theories are facts. They are the most plausible scenario, in the case of evolution, or why are we hear, it's not even close.

All scientific theories are BASED on facts, otherwise they'd only be hypotheses, but scientific theories contain all facts and hypotheses currently being investigated by biologists on whatever subject you are talking about. With evolution there is still plenty to be worked out, however the process itself has been proven to exist. The genetic mutations are measurable. Natural selection is observable. 1+1=2.

They are loosely based on facts, I'm not going to sit here an argue with someone who thinks something is undeniable without ever showing how.

We know evolution exists, no one ever denied it. The fact that it is responsible for us humans on earth is the question, there is nothing that proves this. It is largely speculative at best.

It's nothing like 1+1=2.

Originally posted by The Old American
What are the aforementioned candidate's foreign, domestic, and economic policies? More importantly, is the candidate you mention above for or against bombing the crap out of innocent civilians for the oil they happen to be standing on?

Ron Paul's stance on that is that it is wrong and America should stop murdering people for their natural resources.
Our sitting president's stance is that there aren't enough people he can murder. Think he believes in evolution or creationism?

Which one is better, now?

/TOA

What are you talking about? Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism, and would bring our troops back post-haste. He's been saying that we shouldn't be involved in nation-building and war without Congressional Declaration since day one. He's also supported by more active-duty troops than all the other candidates combined. If you don't understand Ron Paul's position on pretty much anything, just read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or anything by Thomas Jefferson.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
They are loosely based on facts, I'm not going to sit here an argue with someone who thinks something is undeniable without ever showing how.

We know evolution exists, no one ever denied it. The fact that it is responsible for us humans on earth is the question, there is nothing that proves this. It is largely speculative at best.

It's nothing like 1+1=2.

Loosely? Give me an example of what you are talking about. Plenty of people have denied evolution, but to think it magically doesn't apply to humans when it applies to every other creature on earth is downright silly. We can MEASURE the mutation rate in humans, we can track the changes to hominids through the fossil record. We have mapped entire genomes of our distant cousins and that doesn't even begin to cover the massive amount of evidence for human evolution. How do you explain race without evolution?

Largely speculative 2.5 million years of hominid evolutionary history says otherwise.

But a magic creator or alien intervention is not speculation at all