Who need science when you have The Bible? - South Korea to teach creationism instead...

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 




Evolution denies much of our under lying science , so it is more of a religion than science. Science doesn't know how we got here , and our science shouldnt be based off something that has not passed the scientific method.


^ None of that is true in the remotest sense. Please explain to me how gradual genetic change via reproduction violates "much of our underlying science". Evolution is evident from both genetics and the fossil record, along with morphology. It's passes the scientific method with flying colors.

Evolution doesn't postulate on the origin of life, simply upon the diversity of life, abiogenesis is what deals with natural life origins. Creation, a supernatural event, cannot possibly be a better explanation than a natural one.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Yes a creationists group did protest for the removal of several examples of evolution. But get this, These examples where the ones that Darwinists themselves had since abandoned. The were correct in doing so.

The U.S should learn from them, this is exactly what your Darwin lobby fights feverishly against. Academic freedom. It accounts to scientific surpression.


The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said ‘the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckel’s recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago. This kind of lapse in up-to-date knowledge invites such an attack [from the CREIT].’


www.koreabang.com...

The truth has been twisted, as usual.


edit on 22-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


How kind of those creationists "correcting" textbooks to bring the teaching of evolution up to date



The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds2. Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin.

The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. Thanks in part to the KACR’s efforts, creation science — which seeks to provide evidence in support of the creation myth described in the Book of Genesis — has had a growing influence in South Korea, although the STR itself has distanced itself from such doctrines. In early 2008, the KACR scored a hit with a successful exhibition at Seoul Land, one of the country’s leading amusement parks. According to the group, the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in three months, and the park is now in talks to create a year-long exhibition.

Source



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I do not share the creationist perspective, there are other scientific avenues to explore, but the dogmatic materialists are hindering science more than anything else. They are driven purely by this war against creationists and religion, they do indeed treat it as a threat. They even block aspects like self organizaton because they fear it will be interpreted incorrectly.

Being in the middle and having a different view entirely, it appears very apparent to me.

I believe the objections should be dealt with openly. Let the evidence for and against be heard, I agree only with this as far as thier motives are concerned. What the students may learn, to our horror is that we don't have all the answers. That we haven't actually explained stuff away. We can't have that can we?

The examples that they have changed so far are controversial at best if not false, there was some agreement on bot sides scientists, publishers etc.. . .

It does seem there is a certain amount of fear surrounding the issue. The original nature article left out specific details to misrepresent the truth. Read the link I posted for something closer to reality, it is South Korean after all.

The creationist motives are clear, that is certain. But even when they are right they are still wrong! That's what I get a giggle out of.


The screams of teaching creationism are completely false, that is not happening.
edit on 22-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Also, I wouldn't worry about South Koreas education system, they are ranked No.1 in reading maths and science. So they must be doing something right.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Where is the U.S? way down the list at No. 14. You should be concerned when a lobby will pressure to fire teachers who present peer reviewed science papers that have been accepted by the scientific community but deemed inapropriate for the public education system. Yes it has happened. The darwin lobby has fought not to remove the errors from text books or let any opposition slip into the classroom even if it is accepted by the scientific community. Why is that?

The answer is so in your face you don't need to be South Korean to work it out.


edit on 23-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Also, I wouldn't worry about South Koreas education system, they are ranked No.1 in reading maths and science. So they must be doing something right.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Where is the U.S? way down the list at No. 14. You should be concerned when a lobby will pressure to fire teachers who present peer reviewed science papers that have been accepted by the scientific community but deemed inapropriate for the public education system.


This is exactly why creationism / ID should never be taught in a science class. I will be concerned anytime somebody lobbies to dishonestly promote their faith as science. The US is even further down on the list as far as accepting evolution goes. I think there's a direct correlation between that and our education numbers falling. So many people just abandon all logic and critical thinking skills because of an emotional connection to a faith based belief system. Tis very sad. I'm pretty sure Turkey is the only country below us on that list. That's a problem.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

This is exactly why creationism / ID should never be taught in a science class. I will be concerned anytime somebody lobbies to dishonestly promote their faith as science.


Huh? Who is doing that? The Darwin lobby are ones not being honest and promoting bad and outdated science. They are the ones doing the lobbies. Having trouble with reading comprehension again?

The goal is not to bring creationism into the classroom, this is what your media is spinning.

It's to bring both arguments for and against. Yet this is not tolerated. you'd be fired for it. They fear it.

The darwin lobby has fought to KEEP the errors and even peer reviewed science that is contrary to their position out of the classroom. But this is OK I take it. It's scientific suppression plain and simple.


I think there's a direct correlation between that and our education numbers falling. So many people just abandon all logic and critical thinking skills because of an emotional connection to a faith based belief system. Tis very sad. I'm pretty sure Turkey is the only country below us on that list. That's a problem.


There's is no correlation, english and math have nothing to do with the evolution debate. It's your education system full stop. It has nothing to do with religion, but if it makes you feel better go ahead and blame religion for poor reading and math skills.

There may be a correlation as to why people believe just so stories pass as valid scientific evidence over the scientific method though.

So tell me Barcs, do you think students should be sheilded from peer review science? Do you think the errors should stay in the text books?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Huh? Who is doing that? The Darwin lobby are ones not being honest and promoting bad and outdated science. They are the ones doing the lobbies. Having trouble with reading comprehension again?


Who is doing that? South Korea in this case. In America its been happening for the last hundred years, with creationists and ID people advocating that it is science when it is not. They try to force ridiculous arguments that have already been deemed as pseudoscience by pretty much everyone who works in the field of biology, genetics and all related fields of science.

Give me an example of a "Darwin lobbiest" (whatever that means) trying to get a school to publish faulty science. I took your example and flipped it to how it works in the real world. You don't have "Darwinists" trying to install evolution or other science into religious schools. They teach science AS science, which is why when new discoveries are made they are incorporated into the science text books albeit sometimes it takes a while. One of the first things they teach in elementary science classes is the scientific method.


The goal is not to bring creationism into the classroom, this is what your media is spinning.

It's to bring both arguments for and against. Yet this is not tolerated. you'd be fired for it. They fear it.


It's because practically every single argument for ID is based on misunderstandings and overall ignorance of science. All you have to do is go through the top 10 threads or so in this section and you'll see all of them. That represents the meat and potatoes of the ID movement. Even the "best" arguments are pure philosophy based on personal opinion. Science classes are for science. If you want to get into debates about small discrepancies about the details of the theory of evolution, shouldn't that be best reserved for college or the real world working in the profession?

Students are always welcome and encouraged to ask questions if the teacher says something that doesn't make sense or they don't fully understand. Evolution makes sense, though, so the questions are answered.

Actually I take that back. I think it would be good for them to show students the arguments against evolution. This way they can show them early how utterly ridiculous and ignorant most of them are, so they don't grow up to promote this same ignorance to the rest of society.


The darwin lobby has fought to KEEP the errors and even peer reviewed science that is contrary to their position out of the classroom. But this is OK I take it. It's scientific suppression plain and simple.

How so? Again I'll ask for specific examples of this. Find me a peer reviewed paper that goes against evolution that hasn't already been discredited or errors that are intentionally left in.


There's is no correlation, english and math have nothing to do with the evolution debate. It's your education system full stop. It has nothing to do with religion, but if it makes you feel better go ahead and blame religion for poor reading and math skills.

There may be a correlation as to why people believe just so stories pass as valid scientific evidence over the scientific method though.


I feel there is a direct correlation because when you start dismissing science or try to claim ID is legimate science, it reflects directly on your critical thinking skills, which will define you for the rest of your life. When you have a society of people that are willing to accept a crazy interpretation of a holy book as fact, but scrutinize science to the 11th degree without even learning about it first, it will negatively affect our children's development and education as a whole and overall our numbers have been declining.

Do you an example of a made up story that is included in science class that isn't based on evidence?
Obviously they dumb it down for the younger kids and generalize a lot of the concepts, but it makes sense. You can't cram evolution of genomes down people's throats before they even know the basics.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
sorry double post.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Who is doing that? South Korea in this case.


No they are not. Still in denial? They have petitioned to update evolutionary arguments. The goal is however to remove Darwinism from orthodoxy. Something I gladly welcome. Not to introduce religion into science. It's the same in the U.S. As we can clearly see this idea of bringing religion into the classroom as far as South Korea is concerned is simply false. Where's your evidence for South Korea is pushing creationism into the classroom?


ID people advocating that it is science when it is not.


Therefore, science is incapable of detecting design in anything. Which is of course ridiculous. This is a tired old argument stemming from denial. Science has been done. It makes predictions and is falsifiable. It's empirically tested and has found extreme limits on what random mutation can accomplish. As well as genetic knock out test which meets Darwin’s criteria of falsification. Science is not just so stories or saying this looks like that so therefore..., it is meant to be backed by empirical evidence. Ifs and maybes just don't cut it as science. I have asked you for this evidence before and each time it does not stand with empirical tests. All experimental data has shown that Darwinism works through loss of function. Agreed beneficial mutations can occur this way however new functions requiring several mutations cannot be created through a series of lost functions. There are some examples, Lenski, Thornton etc.. all of these involved loss of function.

The fact is prescriptive information, can only come from intelligence, therefore it stands as the best hypothesis to date. In fact it is the ONLY explanation. Logic dictates this because we have no other alternatives. This is a fact. Contrary to this, the assumption that randomness is responsible is just that, an assumption. There is no empirical basis for building complex functions involving multiple random mutations. And experiments have shown elements of non randomness as in James Shapiro's work.


Give me an example of a "Darwin lobbiest" (whatever that means) trying to get a school to publish faulty science.

www.evolutionnews.org...

If you want examples of other suppression this would make quite a long list. Why didn't you investigate for youself? Is it because you don't really want to know? I think so.


• Using long-outdated arguments that certain organs (like the appendix or tonsils) are "vestigial," and thus serve as evidence for evolution.

• Inclusion of Haeckel's long-refuted embryo drawings, which overstate the similarities among vertebrate embryos in the early stages of vertebrate development.

• Retelling old myths about the Miller-Urey experiment and the origin of life and wrongly telling students the experiment correctly simulated gases present on the early earth.

• Overstating the evidence for biochemical evolution by claiming biologists have evolutionary explanations, when they don't.


Fact is some of these are still being published, and references to the cambrian mystery are often left out altogether.


Evolution makes sense, though, so the questions are answered.


The history of science is filled with this sort of attitude and every time it has been proven wrong. And they say ID is a science stopper.

Evolution does make sense, random noise producing highly complex new functionality requiring multiple mutations does not and there Is no evidence for it.


Actually I take that back. I think it would be good for them to show students the arguments against evolution. This way they can show them early how utterly ridiculous and ignorant most of them are, so they don't grow up to promote this same ignorance to the rest of society.


Glad to hear it let the students decide, without hearing the otherside they may just end up in denial like yourself.
The ignorance that is very clear here is the ignorance of the empirical evidence that proves it cannot account for the arrival of new complex features. In 2008 a meeting was held in Altenburg to bring ideas forth for a new version of the modern synthesis. Why? Because it does not account for the complexity we see. It is failing in light of new discoveries. Plain and simple. But you say it's all answered, that's absurd.

I've shown plenty of peer reviewed papers that make this quite apparent, you know this or perhaps you don't because all I receive is silence or denial. You've chosen to dismiss them. It's called cognitive dissonance. You’ve made your mind up so evidence to the contrary will not pass your filters.


When you have a society of people that are willing to accept a crazy interpretation of a holy book as fact, but scrutinize science to the 11th degree without even learning about it first


Once again you create a straw man, I've never read the bible, I am not religious. You do know this, yet you use it again. Get some original arguments. I am studying biology actually. Many, many academics doubt the validity of Neo-Darwinism, I guarantee they are better educated in scientific matters than you are. Get off your high horse.


Do you an example of a made up story that is included in science class that isn't based on evidence?


Look at the examples of the old arguments being removed, and set to be removed. This is the reason they are being removed. They don’t stand up.

Perhaps videos are easier to grasp, no reading involved.



Here's another from Doug axe, one of my favourite micro biologists. He is doing real science in this area, experimental tests. It doesn't look good for the darwinian mechanism, as far as science goes it stands as falsification straight up. Darwinists need to prove otherwise via experiment. This hasn't been done, nor will it ever.

edit on 24-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
www.evolutionnews.org...

If you want examples of other suppression this would make quite a long list. Why didn't you investigate for youself? Is it because you don't really want to know? I think so.

I want the facts, not some article referencing Stephen Meyer, a known scam artist who tries to promote ID but pleads the 5th as far as a creator is concerned. That is NOT science.

"DNA looks like a computer language" - NOT SCIENCE
"DNA appears very complex" - NOT SCIENCE
"We don't know the exact origin of DNA yet, so it must come from intelligence" - NOT SCIENCE


• Using long-outdated arguments that certain organs (like the appendix or tonsils) are "vestigial," and thus serve as evidence for evolution.
Come on, that's the oldest argument in the book. You don't need the validation of vestigial organs to prove the obvious mechanisms of evolution. Regardless of those few, vestigial organs do exist. Why do you think the whale has a hip bone? *gets ready for the usual, "remove the bone and see if the whale survives" nonsense*. Evolution is SO obvious.


• Retelling old myths about the Miller-Urey experiment and the origin of life and wrongly telling students the experiment correctly simulated gases present on the early earth.

Ignorance. The experiment is NOT a myth, and the article suggests it is, simply because they might not know
the exact atmosphere of the ancient earth. If it can happen, it can happen. That's all science is suggesting.


• Overstating the evidence for biochemical evolution by claiming biologists have evolutionary explanations, when they don't.

Ha! Blatant lie. I knew there would be at least one. Sorry, you're going to have to give me a better source for this crap. Stephen Meyer is a liar, not a scientist. The experiment on multi cellularity doesn't count? The abiogenesis experiments? The speciation experiments in a lab? Genetic mutation rates? Observing natural selection in nature and in a lab? What grade level of text books is this even referring to?


Evolution does make sense, random noise producing highly complex new functionality requiring multiple mutations does not and there Is no evidence for it.

Does a mouse with brown fir have a better chance to survive in a brown field, than a mouse with white fir? Can genetic mutations cause changes in fir color? There you go. You seem to think that because big changes don't suddenly happen at once that complex functions cannot arise. Those complex functions take millions upon millions of years.


Glad to hear it let the students decide, without hearing the otherside they may just end up in denial like yourself.

So students should teach themselves, and ignore what people who have dedicated their lives to scientific research have to say about it?


The ignorance that is very clear here is the ignorance of the empirical evidence that proves it cannot account for the arrival of new complex features.

Please name a complex feature that suddenly appeared in a species.


I've shown plenty of peer reviewed papers that make this quite apparent, you know this or perhaps you don't because all I receive is silence or denial. You've chosen to dismiss them. It's called cognitive dissonance. You’ve made your mind up so evidence to the contrary will not pass your filters.

The last time you posted an experiment it ended up being slipped into a peer reviewed journal and was later discredited along with the editor that published it. It was also an experiment that you derived your own conclusions on, rather than reading the scientists conclusions.


Once again you create a straw man, I've never read the bible, I am not

I wasn't speaking about you, I was speaking in general based on posts in this section. I also don't believe you are telling the truth. My question to you is this. WHY are you so adamant about attacking evolution, if it doesn't conflict with your belief system? It doesn't make any sense to assume ID, without having a religious belief, because ID can't exist without religious belief as its not science or even close to it. Why can't ID AND evolution both coexist? If you aren't a bible creation literalist there is no conflict. Maybe you could explain your position better so I can try to understand where you are coming from.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I won't respond to obvious ad homs and other various logical fallacies, the info is there for anyone to investigate without bias. How anyone can deny that opposing views are persecuted shows cognitive bias. There’s a substantial history of it, even just recently at NASA. So much for denying ignorance.

I will address one of your points though because it is an interesting subject.

As for the whale, I have no problem with the fossil evidence. The transformation happened it would appear and it is the best example of macro morphogenesis. Definitely.

But… this is a great example of how people tell stories then call it science!

By all standard estimates it’s a few hundred million years too fast.
Here’s the miraculous scenario laid out in detail.
Whale Evolution

Now consider....

• Counter-current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes
• Ball vertebra
• Tail flukes and musculature
• Blubber for temperature insulation
• Ability to drink sea water (reorganization of kidney tissues)
• Fetus in breech position (for labor underwater)
• Nurse young underwater (modified mammae)
• Forelimbs transformed into flippers
• Reduction of hindlimbs
• Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae
• Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs
• Hydrodynamic properties of the skin
• Special lung surfactants
• Novel muscle systems for the blowhole
• Modification of the teeth
• Modification of the eye for underwater vision
• Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution
• Reorganization of skull bones and musculature
• Modification of the ear bones
• Decoupling of esophagus and trachea
• Synthesis and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals)
• Emergence of blowhole musculature and neurological control

It should be noted as well that the time frame used in this case is around 9 million. This has since been pushed back to about 4 or 5 million years with new fossil evidence, with the whale being fully aquatic in possibly one million years. Then not changing for another 50+ million years or so.

Then we have some convergent evolution with a very unlikely contender, extremely unlikely I'd say impossible in blind random process no matter how you spin it.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Are we to believe that a blind process can create the same design? Seriously brainwashed is all I can say. It’s just not going to happen. Nothing has been explained.

The vestigial hind leg bones are exactly what would be expected in the Darwinian Loss of function process!

Use it or lose it. Random Mutation does happen. Random mutation breaks things. It does not innovate! Yeah we got all the answers don’t we? Just no scientific evidence. It’s laughable.

And just so it's a tiny bit on topic, whale evolution was one of the proofs that was updated in south Korea replacing the false horse "Lineage".

Dream on dude... I won't engage in this silliness. The fact regarding this thread is that the title is false, and should by all acounts be thrown to the hoax forum.
edit on 25-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Here's proof, This is your "Darwin Lobby". Pay attention U.S Students this is a serious problem. If you have any doubts what so ever about anthropogenic global warming or it's impacts or pollitical influence you are no better than a creationists!

You see science being dictated by a single judge who is not a scientist. He ignored laboratory tests! But that's another subject. They now will limit freedom of speach in other areas as well. You have a scientific industrial polliticised complex telling you what you can and can't think!

Science works best through debate and evaluating facts. This is the best way to develop critical thinking. This is being suffocated in your country. It shouldn't matter which side you choose. Everyone should agree this is a problem.



edit on 25-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
And the alternative for evolution theory is creationism?

Which creation story we should pay attention? There are thousands of creation story... which one we should pick up to teach?
- Good, you chose one. Now please prove to us the one you selected is the correct one.

edit on 25/6/12 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
This is the problem, you've been led to believe that every contray opinion is creationism. As far as I'm concerned this is the literal translation of the genesis story. Something I'm not interested in. The attempt is to instantly cast it as crank science along side myth and religion is just smear tactics, can't we see it?

Firstly there are those who are unsatisfied with the current explanations who also object to ID!
There are other ideas out there not invoking ID. But they all boil down to the same problems.
Second I'd say find out what the arguments are, yeah there are lots of points of view.

To carry on like it's been solved is arrogant nonsense.

Evolution in my opinion does happen, It was meant to, that's the difference. Probably the whole universe is evolving. It's just a word, it can be applied to different things.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

I appreciate you taking the time to break that down. It's nothing personal, I was just confused by your points. I'm just as curious as you about the origin of life and the unknown. I think that the reason why opposing views are so quickly dismissed and often ridiculed, is because of the incredibly large amount of nonsense that is put out there by creationists. It's really the literalists and young earthers that give the ID movement a bad name.

So first, the video you posted was done by Richard Sternberg, the same person who was discredited for putting Stephen Meyer's paper in the peer reviewed journal without following protocol. The paper was later deemed to be unscientific. I can't take his word for the claims he has made in that video. I'm skeptical of him for good reasons.

en.wikipedia.org...

I believe this is the paper that I referred to in my previous post.

Here's a pretty good simple video about whale evolution.

www.pbs.org...

I like this one as well, but be warned there is "story" involved, but the evidence is pretty good and they give the history of how the finds happened and where the links were.



Now, obviously scientists do not have the complete picture of whale evolution, but they are getting closer. Why do you think 10 million years is too fast? Ancient ape to modern human was roughly 7 million years. Evolution is certainly not blind and does not follow any time tables, it follows the environment. Quicker changes in environment lead to quicker changes in the creatures that live there. A natural disaster could have pushed these creatures to start spending their entire lives in the water. It could have also been a change in food source, or combination of multiple factors, including interbreeding.

The problem with dolphins and whales evolving from fish, is the need to breathe air. When would a fish, who spends its entire life in the water ever need that as a survival tool? Transition from land makes more sense. It happened inversely with amphibians, so why not? A million years is a long time, but if they fit in well, they do not change much, hence sharks.

A quick side note. I just watched the other video. Climate change denial is strange. The climate is always changing on earth. It's been bouncing back and forth from warm to cool over the past 2.5 million years. Whether it is warming or cooling is relative to how far back you go. The science behind climate change is legit as far as CO2 affecting the temperature. However, there's no question that people are using the concept to bank off and have misrepresented it. The sun does have a major effect on our temperature. In fact the sun is steadily getting warmer. In 1 billion years from now the sun will be 10% brighter and the average temperature probably in the hundreds. There are multitudes of other factors that affect our environment and temperature as well. CO2 is one of them. There will be another ice age, the question is when. We left the last one 12,000 years ago.
edit on 26-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The names connected to the research have been targeted and attacked for a reason, not because the arguments are invalid but because they are contrary, There have been quite a few paper publised since that debarcle. The whole affair is just more of what I have been talking about.

To come to some sort of middle ground, I definately agree the young earthers gathering around what should be science doesn't help the image at all. But this is just an image. What has to be established is what constitues design, if this can be established and accepted (that's the difficult part), then by logic it must be considered scientifically acceptable to seek those features in nature.

There could be many answers for who? but the who would be beyond science I think.
The fear is from the fact that the door would be left open for all sorts of beliefs. Which it would, that's true. So we have a problem.

For me it really does boils down to randomness, As far as the evidence goes it can be interpreted in different ways, I won't dispute hard empirical facts. As well there are many mechanisms at work that are not very well understood at this stage. This definately includes morphogenesis.

To turn a wolf/cat like creature into a whale requires so many physical changes amounting to hundreds of thousands maybe millions of functional mutations with each successful step being fixed in the population is a simple mathematical problem. Even simple traits will require multiple mutations for functionality. If it were true, which I think it was. The only thing I could suggest is that the genome can intentionaly rearrange, co-opt and design itself. This may sound silly to some but not really as silly as a random search function when the numbers are beyond reason.

This is what the protzoa has been found to do in fact, it divides it's DNA into hundred thousands pieces and rearanges them to adapt to it's new environment. So there is some evidence to support this view. There's also evidence that bio electric fields play a fundamental role in morphogensis as well which definately opens another rabbit hole as far as information goes. It may also suggest rapid changes are induced by changes in the earths electric field. There are too many unknowns to know for sure. It just an idea. But I see no reason at all to believe it's all random mutation which is also just an idea.
edit on 26-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


There are legitimate scientists who believe in both the bible and evolution. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
www.wired.co.uk...

Interesting and relevant. I thought about making another thread, but this one will do.
Seems to prove this whole thread wrong.

There's been a victory for sense and science in South Korea, as the government there has rejected calls to drop references to the evolution of birds from the national school curriculum.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join