Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Evolution evidence?

October 22, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

In a letter to the editor under the title "Informed view" (Public Forum, Oct. 17), Bruce Springsteen takes Karyl Graves to task for not kowtowing to the evolutionary dogma. Springsteen demonstrates an amazing example of humanistic piety by noting that "anyone who is unable to learn the basic facts regarding human evolution and standard answers to the fallacies and lies of its deniers is not trying very hard." I doubt that many armchair evolutionists are as well versed in the evidence and arguments concerning evolution as are most creationists.

Here's a little challenge. If the evidence is so overwhelming and there are so many books and articles out there enumerating and explaining the "facts," why don't you cite an example of a single tenet of evolution the evidence for which is not hotly contested. You won't, because you can't.

Scientific "facts" don't become true on the basis of voting. We can't define science by the popularity of its tenets. Like global warming, evolution is mired in debate. Like global warming, the left has voted into the public conscience a dogma they want us all to cherish. As long as a person is unwilling to provide us with a pertinent fact about which we can argue, yet continues to insist that evolution is true, he is merely exercising his right to freedom of religion.

If you want to believe in evolution, you are welcome to do so. If you want to engage in scientific dialogue, bring your evidence, and we will have a look at it.

Sheldon Todd Wilson,
Lawrence

Comments

Steve Jacob 6 years, 2 months ago

And what "facts" does the bible bring to the table?I was thinking the same thing, but I was not going to be as cold as you are, 23. My opinion is why fight over the past, we should all be looking more toward the future.

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

Chris: "Just go to talk-origins or the Wikipedia articles on genetics or evolution for Christ's sake."I'm not sure going to talk-origins would be for His sake.

BrianR 6 years, 2 months ago

"I doubt that many armchair evolutionists are as well versed in the evidence and arguments concerning evolution as are most creationists."That's a knee-slapper, Sheldon. A better phrase would have been: I doubt that many armchair evolutionists are as well versed in the evidence and arguments concerning evolution as are most zealots.Inserting a "designer" into the mix excuses exploration into cause and effect. It's just lazy and it's not science no matter how much you try to portray it as science.

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

It does seem strange that no one has accepted the challenge. Daytrader, along with others, did agree with Wilson when he attacked the Bible showing "he is merely exercising his right to freedom of religion", that in the comparison, he demonstrates evolution is nothing more than a religion.jonas: "Bacteria evolve. It happens all the time, and it is observable. It is evolution,"I suppose it presents a foundation for inquiry, but not evolution as to what most define as evolution. Do you really think that is what people are objecting to?In what way (maybe you have some knowledge about them which I don't) do bacteria evolve that supports the idea of new information being coded in the DNA.Surely you don't mean as barney listed: "Most of the bacteria die, but a few of the resistant ones survive....And POOFF, that germ has just evolved by adapting to a changing environment:"Umm.... no. He said the resistant ones survived. They did not evolve. They were there. The non-resistant ones were eliminated. The population information was reduced, not increased."not "On The Origin of Life.""Wouldn't that be something for a "level of inquiry"? Why wouldn't that be part of science? Regardless if most scientists believe in common descent, why is that being said as an absolute FACT on this forum and being taught as such in schools?

pusscanthropus 6 years, 2 months ago

BTW, evolution doesn't have "tenets." It is not a belief system like the fundamentalists want to depict it. Evolution has forces that are in play every day. It is measured over time because populations, not individuals, are the unit of evolution. A change in the genetic frequencies from one generation to the next is evolution. It can be measured and scientists do this every day.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

Do you, for instance, have any idea how evolution is actually "taught" in our schools? I was in high-school, relatively, not that long ago. (cough) I don't recall ever particularly discussing Darwin's theory to any great length, at all. Things might have changed, but I think you should prove to us that they have if you suggest that a problem exists.

Christine Anderson 6 years, 2 months ago

I normally would take a serious position on this subject. However, the truth is, most adult males ARE proof that MEN evolved from apes!!!

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 2 months ago

Rumor has it that God now has evolved beyond us.Turn out the light.

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Thank you for your as yet unanswered challenge Sheldon Todd Wilson! Not one Church of Darwin member has provided an evolution fact all scientists admit is factual and true. Their responses largely lean on an attack of the Holy Bible, apparently the stumbling block for true believers in molecules to man, goo to the zoo to you tall tales which somehow keeps them from divulging the secret facts of evolution. Maybe we should visit a high school science class to get the list taught there?They're not even willing to offer up typical talking points like finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands or bacterial resistance to some antibiotics. Sheldon you have flummoxed them with a furious flourish of venal verbosity!

Daytrader23 6 years, 2 months ago

And what "facts" does the bible bring to the table?A man split the sea in half? LOLAll human races stems from Adam and Eve? Are you on crack?Don't forget that the bible was written by a group of corrupt Roman politicians who were trying to control its people. Now that is a fact. It's also scary that people still believe the bible despite this fact.

grimpeur 6 years, 2 months ago

Behold his saucy meatballs!reverber (Anonymous) says:I thought he was talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Cody Ochs 6 years, 2 months ago

I thought he was talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

No, they really aren't. We don't know, and currently don't have access to the answer, but it's a meaningless and irrelevant question that does not change anything at all in the observable evidence of evolution. You'll recall that Darwin's title is "On The Origin of Species," not "On The Origin of Life."It's not a set of questions limited to evolution either. Where did the first God come from?How did God generate from nothing?Do you find those questions unsettling?

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

"why don't you cite an example of a single tenet of evolution the evidence for which is not hotly contested. You won't, because you can't."Bacteria evolve. It happens all the time, and it is observable. It is evolution, and you can't deny it, but you can still contest it, so I guess in the end you're probably right. There is no evidence so strong that people determined to close their ears, eyes and minds will not be able to contest, as long as they're free to ignore everything but what they want to perceive.

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

How Not to Teach Evolution 10/21/2008 "Current Biology usually interviews a scientist for each issue. In the October 14 issue, the subject was Dyche Mullins, a molecular biologist at UC San Francisco. His story of how evolution was taught in high school should make teachers and parents take notice.After the usual anecdotal fluff about what kind of cookies he likes and what bicycles he prefers, Mullins was asked what turned him on to biology after so many years (he did not become interested till graduate school)."http://creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081021a

deputyfife 6 years, 2 months ago

It is often difficult to find "evidence" that supports evolution for non-believers because we generally have to rely upon interpretations of very long records of the past, since evolution is typically a very slow process.But here is one we are all familiar with -- bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Everyone knows that this occurs and how it occurs. An antibiotic is introduced to various bacteria/germs. Most of the bacteria die, but a few of the resistant ones survive. When they reproduce, they generate new bacteria that are also resistant to the antibiotic. And POOFF, that germ has just evolved by adapting to a changing environment...

emeryemery 6 years, 2 months ago

Sheldon Todd Wilson is an idiot of magnanimous proportions. Truly an absolute moron.

smarty_pants 6 years, 2 months ago

My dear brothers and sisters, God was trying to test humans, so HE stealthily planted Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and archaic Homo sapiens fossils all around the Old World. Those who "believe" in the existence of these hominids are going to burn in fiery hell forever, but those who refute them will sit at the right hand of God in heaven. Amen. (That tricky God!)

Chris Golledge 6 years, 2 months ago

"...why don't you cite an example of a single tenet of evolution the evidence for which is not hotly contested."You know, there exist people who would hotly contest that the earth is approximately spherical, but that doesn't mean we should teach flat-earth theory in our science classes.

3crookedhearts 6 years, 2 months ago

Here are some facts, Sheldon:It is a fact that our earth with liquid water is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. I hope that these facts are not hotly contested. Fossil evidence and carbon dating prove this. If you don't believe that fossil evidence and carbon dating prove this, then stop reading. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none living now. It is a fact that all living life forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.The question then, becomes, if these are facts (which I'm sure some people on this board will contend are refutable), how did life begin? Is there an engineer guiding the process? If there is an engineer guiding the process, why? How? Where? What kind of car does she drive? These are questions that science CANNOT answer . . . . . . . yet.

devobrun 6 years, 2 months ago

Hooray for Mr. Wilson. Hooray!The alternative to evolution isn't creation.The alternative is obvious, natural and the first place any rational person must go when confronted by narrative that can't be tested.We don't know, folks. It's simple. We don't know if man descended from a common apelike ancestor. We don't know. You evolutionists diminish your science by allowing extrapolation into conjecture which cannot be tested. You tell a narrative that is just as fanciful as the creationists, and just as fecund. I don't believe in either creation or evolution because I don't have to. Nothing in our world has been designed, built, used, or influences our lives in any way that relies on your monstrously overblown evolution narrative.

pomegranate 6 years, 2 months ago

You know, God created everything in 7 days. But since none of us us were there, we have no idea at all if that would be 7 days our time, or 7 days God time.Therefore, it would seem that creation and evolution go hand in hand. God very easily could have had each of His days be a million or so of ours. In which case, God could have created evolution!!!

rtwngr 6 years, 2 months ago

How did life generate from nothing?

Daytrader23 6 years, 2 months ago

bondmen (Anonymous) says: Blah, blah, blah------------------------------------------------------------- You blame us for not coming up with any facts and yet you provide none yourself. At least I came up with a fact that proves the bible to be nothing more than a fairytale. Can you prove creationism to be true? Without reciting a verse from your fiction novel.Ok enough christian bashing for me today. It's just too easy.

Chris Redford 6 years, 2 months ago

"You evolutionists diminish your science by allowing extrapolation into conjecture which cannot be tested."Actually, yes, it can be tested and has been on fruit flies and bacteria. Now that we have the theory we really can watch for direct evidence of it in the extant species on Earth as they evolve by natural selection.People forget that evolution is not just a phenomenon of the past. It is a phenomenon of the present and future too. And I think you can count on the evidence for it getting even stronger as time progresses.As for current strong evidence of it that is not at all contested in science, look at the book Genomes 2. Genetics is based entirely on evolution and makes no sense without it. There is no other plausible explanation for why genes are the way they are and why they pass from one organism to another it reproduces the way they do.You all are taking an uninformed gamble when you try to wager that there is no uncontested evidence for evolution. You simply are not aware of it because you don't spend time actually investigating it.

3crookedhearts 6 years, 2 months ago

bondmen, while I do belive that some of the "evolutionists" on this board have been a bit immature, Sheldon asked for facts and that is what he has been provided (by many on this thread). I do agree with you on this, I don't believe there can exist enough evidence, scientific or otherwise, that will convince you and Sheldon and others that evolution exists. The FACT is, it does. Evolution has occured on this earth for millions of years. It continues to occur, and will occur long after humans have been supplanted by or evolve into a superior form of life or are exterminated by catastrophe, or, better yet replaced by a superior species that was created in a lab by gene manipulating mad scientists(intelligent gene designers?). Also, describing someone as being ignorant is not name-calling. That is a huge pet peeve of mine.

ockhamsrazor 6 years, 2 months ago

All science trembles before the searing logic of Sheldon's fiery intellect. Surely he must be a candidate for our Kansas State Board of Education.

3crookedhearts 6 years, 2 months ago

devobrun-How is what I said not a fact? "All living life forms came from previous living forms." What is this "first one" you reference? I'd imagine there's a tree that's maybe a few thousand years old, but I'd think we'd both agree that it came from a tree that was older than it. Unless that's a "fact" that can be disputed. The life form I believe your referencing hasn't been alive for at least a few billion years. I reference that first life form in my end comments of my first post on this thread. You didn't read my post. The reason my post was littered with so many facts is because that is exactly what Sheldon was asking for: facts. I provided plenty.Evolution has no comment to make about how the first life form was created, but has everything to do with how the life that's on the planet now was formed. The other part of your post I find to be errouneous is your argument that a "scientific theory" is a structure of ideas used to interpret facts can be passed off as a "narrative." In common usage, yes, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In your usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.That's not the definition used when the "Theory of Evolution" is discussed. That definition falls in line with the scientific "theory" definition. For the scientist, and for the sake of the ACTUAL definition of the word as it applies to evolution, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the general theory of relativity.Creationists tend to go towards this line of reasoning sometimes not knowing that there's a semantic issue with the word theory. Again, I chalk it up to ignorance. The good news is: now you know, devobrun.

Confrontation 6 years, 2 months ago

Sheldon's tend to be easy targets for bullies.

rtwngr 6 years, 2 months ago

So where did the first bacteria come from?

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"Surely those among them who are reasonable must agree."No, I don't agree."Surely they disagree with those few among them who are not reasonable."Agree. The problem, Bondmen, is that you're not among the reasonable. You have just stated the exact same thing that you posited before, have ignored a great deal completely (such as, for instance, the offering of evidence that was requested), and then said the same thing again, several hours later. Just repeating it, over and over, does not make it any more true. The fact that the only posts that you will address are the ones that you can immediately criticize as being dogmatic and immature is, in itself, very telling indeed.

devobrun 6 years, 2 months ago

3crookedhearts: "It is a fact that all living life forms come from previous living forms."Except the first one.But hey, it is a fact. FACT, FACT, I tell ya.Ease up with the "facts" 3crooked. They don't become the scientist. Especially in this modern world of challenging many things that used to be called facts.emeryemery: "Sheldon Todd Wilson is an idiot of magnanimous proportions. Truly an absolute moron." cogent, insightful, and erudite. Based upon your new viewpoint, I have completely changed my mind about the definition of science.scottymac: "A "myth" is a body of traditional beliefs usually presented in the form of a heroic story. A "fact" is a piece of data. A "theory" is a structure of ideas that attempts to interpret and explain facts."And a narrative is a story. A story is verbiage used to flesh out the interconnections of facts. It is intended to give context to those facts. The narrative differs from the theory in that the theory can be tested, directly. The narrative cannot. The narrative uses metaphors, extrapolations, interpretations, and downright unfalsifiable assertions. The part of evolution that is erroneous is the grand narrative part. Claiming that observed variations in lab experiments or on a computer is equivalent to the statement that all apelike creations descended from a common apelike ancestor is narrative.Biology is diminished as a science as a result of the narrative.Oh, to all, The problem isn't creation. That's faith, not science.Nope, the problem is the sloppy, unimportant and fruitless expansion of science into realms that cannot be falsified.Statements that have no meaning except to stick it to religion. Pretty sorry state of affairs in biology, I'd say.

Compy 6 years, 2 months ago

No, Sheldon, that's not how science works. You are behaving like a child. An adult understands how theories and hyotheses are constructed, and tested. Please bring empirical evidence or data concerning the intelligent design of life on Earth to any scientist and he will debunk it for you. You've got it backwards: scientists are smart, rigorous, and dedicated to the truth. "Creationists" lack intelligence, do not require any criteria (beyond the author's faith) in the examnation of facts, and are dedicated only to monolithic beliefs which are outdated, simple, and plain offensive to those of us who read books written in the last millenia.Creationism, and the crusade to spread it's lies, is an affront to civilised, thinking humans everywhere. Your beliefs are wrong. Your belief system is therefore flawed.

ScottyMac 6 years, 2 months ago

Sigh...Here we go again. A "myth" is a body of traditional beliefs usually presented in the form of a heroic story. A "fact" is a piece of data. A "theory" is a structure of ideas that attempts to interpret and explain facts. * Creationism (or "Intelligent Design" as it's called these days) is a myth. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is, as someone pointed out earlier, defined as "a change in gene frequency." That populations experience genetic changes with each new generation is a fact. Thus, evolution is a fact. Many of the smarter creationists no longer dispute this point. And certainly no credible scientist disputes it, hotly or otherwise. Creationists sometimes try to weasle around it by calling small genetic changes "microevolution" while denying so-called "macroevolution," which is accumulated changes over long periods of time. Many scientists disregard that distinction. * The Theory of Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain the fact of gene frequency change (ie., the fact of evolution). It's true that there are hotly contested aspects of the theory. But no one --and I mean no one-- who makes a living in theoretical biology denies the fact of evolution. On the other hand, a few people who make a living in creationist mythology do. * The Theory of Evolution is not a faith. Thus it cannot have a dogma. Furthermore, it is not a an idea that comes from the "left." It is not a political platform. It is a scientific construction. Nobody "believes in" the Theory of Evolution: They look at the data and give it provisional consent or they do not. Creationist myths demand "belief" because they propose the efforts of a supernatural being. Theories are interpretations of empirical data. No appeals to supernatural forces are allowed in science. * Mr. Wilson offers this challenge: "If you want to engage in scientific dialogue, bring your evidence, and we will have a look at it." This is where his stubborn ignorance betrays his claim to know more than "armchair evolutionists." Here is the way science works: Scientists engage in scientific dialogue by bringing they're evidence for others to look at. They do this through a system of peer-reviewed journals. Take a walk up to Anschutz Library and dig in. Most of the men and women who actually do so accept evolution as a reality.

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

"Nothing in our world has been designed, built, used, or influences our lives in any way that relies on your monstrously overblown evolution narrative."I think the only thing that's been overblown is the actual importance placed on the over-arching theory of a single ancestor or whatever, which has been fed to us as something that all scientists buy into completely, which is pretty much untrue. In true scientific fashion, it provides nothing more than a level of inquiry, and no answers. Of course, corruptible people have corrupted that idea.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 2 months ago

It's a good thing that we don't practice law the way Sheldon Wilson practices science. Picture this: someone is murdered. His brother is a suspect. Halfway through the investigation, they haven't found any tough evidence either way, so the investigators throw up their arms and say "We don't have the answer, so God did it!"Letters like this and people like Mr. Wilson are the reason that this country, and in particular this state, is a laughing stock.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

lawrenceguy40: It was Joseph after all. So Jesus was truly the descendant of King David, making him suitably important. Well okay, I made that up. But it could've happened.

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Sheldon, they haven't yet and I think they'll not be able to produce the evidence needed to prove their evolution faith.They are mostly capable of lowering the debate to name calling and childish criticisms one can pick up on the grade school playground. It is a sad display of immaturity coming from the evolutionists. Surely those among them who are reasonable must agree.

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"Who is this "most" that you are referring to?"Okay, jonas, so that you don't think I'm just making it up and can see at least where I get the idea of common descent from, here's something from Berkeley. Berkeley isn't what you would call an "anecdotal reference", would you?http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."Another? How about from KU?http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.htmlBiological evolution is the theory that life on Earth has developed gradually from a common ancestor.Need I find more?Now your turn. So that I don't think you just made up the bit about, foundation for inquiry, could you list some education or scientific sites stating such?

BuffyloGal 6 years, 2 months ago

"why don't you cite an example of a single tenet of evolution the evidence for which is not hotly contested. You won't, because you can't."Could the same not also be true of Scripture? Jesus was a nice guy, holy guy, or savior of everyone - depends on which religion you follow. Transubstantiation or cannabalism? To eat or not to eat (insert forbidden item here). Science isn't based on faith.

Chris Redford 6 years, 2 months ago

In other words, Bruce has been spot-on this entire time ("anyone who is unable to learn the basic facts regarding human evolution and standard answers to the fallacies and lies of its deniers is not trying very hard."). We are having to educate you because you refuse to educate yourself. Just go to talk-origins or the Wikipedia articles on genetics or evolution for Christ's sake. The Internet is bursting with uncontested, universally agreed-upon evidence for evolution among scientists if you actually take the time to look at it.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"But not evolution as to what most define as evolution."Who is this "most" that you are referring to? One of my basic contentions has always been that this "they" that keeps getting brought up largely exists only in the heads of the creationists. Supportable with anecdotal references, perhaps, but hardly representative."Do you really think that is what people are objecting to?"I'm not sure most people realize what they're objecting to.

boltzmann 6 years, 2 months ago

gr says "Umm:. no. He said the resistant ones survived. They did not evolve. They were there. The non-resistant ones were eliminated. The population information was reduced, not increased."Huh? But that is exactly what evolution/natural selection is - a change in the genetic make-up of a population over time. How can you say they didn't evolve - that is nonsense. And how do you precisely define what you call "population information"

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 2 months ago

This is pathetic. But, but, but, but humans are special. We look nothing like any other animal out there. No, we couldn't possibly be the result of evolution through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, etc. over millions of years. What the heck is a million years? I can't even fathom that! That's why the idea is soooo absurd!Read 'Neandertals, The: Changing the Image of Mankind' by Erik Trinkaus. It is getting somewhat dated, but it is one of the best summaries of the history of the evolution debate that I have ever come across. It is just pathetic that evolutionary theory (or even an old Earth theory) still faces exactly the same criticisms--mostly faith-based--that it faced in Darwin's time. I'm done here. I'll be seething all day if I don't just step away immediately.

devobrun 6 years, 2 months ago

OK, 3, let's try this again. This time I'll include the entire paragraph:"It is a fact that all living life forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."My analysis is based on logic. Karl Popper provides the philosophy.There was a first lifeform, according to evolution. Evolution says nothing about how that first lifeform got started. But there was a first one. Agree so far?If that was the case, what precludes the process from repeating itself? Maybe lifeforms are being generated by the same process that formed the first one? Right now.How are you gonna test this? Gather all lifeforms in existence today and verify that they came from a previous lifeform? Not possible.Thus, your statement is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. Now, your statement is taken by me as non-scientific. It is grand. The paragraph that you wrote is just the kind of narrative that I'm talking about. Round earth? Magellan.Rotating about its axis? satellites and stars.Revolving around the sun? triangulation in combination with satellites and stars.Yep, the physics of Galileo was a conjecture awaiting the test. Do it. Test it. Risk your life on it. Ultimately believe it because you must at the peril of your life. Non-birds to birds? This is a narrative that is not testable and a joke to a logician. Science proves nothing. It approaches the truth, and facts, asymptotically. Your use of the term facts is sloppy, overwrought, and non-scientific. You must live in a world where models and explanations are just as good as actually doing things.Why have you not allowed some present living things be generated by the same process that started the first living being? I think I know. You don't know yet how the first living thing got started. You reject the possibility that it is happening now. Fits right in with the indefensible arrogance of evolutionary grand narratives.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"Neither does what bondmen posted above."That's funny isn't it, as what bondmen posted above is actually the editorial commentary on a brief passage of text, and all the opinions contained in bondmen's post are the opinions of an editor or commentator at Creation Safari. Maybe you should read the full link.

pusscanthropus 6 years, 2 months ago

Here's some evidence:Over time, hominids have had a reduction in the face and jaw and an increase in brain size (except Sheldon!). Anyway, the fact that our "wisdom" teeth do not fit in our jaws should illustrate to simple minds that our genes still think we have huge jaws! Evolution isn't a march toward perfection; it is just change!

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"How about objecting to the conclusion that all life descended from a common ancestor?"So, you're simply objecting to the theory, then? Do you not believe that a theory, with some supporting evidence (facts), should be presented in a science classroom for student evaluation as a theory? Apparently, you Should read Bondmen's link from Creation Safari, as the editorial opinions, from creation scientists, assumedly, are all reactions to the scenario that supposedly results when you don't present this information. Not that I think they're particularly on-base either, but whatever.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

"If you want to engage in scientific dialogue, bring your evidence, and we will have a look at it." -- SheldonNone of the responses to this letter are surprising. The exact same people (like Gr and Devo) come out and say exactly the same thing. Nothing has changed. In the words of Jack, I grow tired of the same old thing. All of this is about politics and semantics. How does one even think they are engaging in "scientific dialog" when writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper? Why do this? Do you really think that this somehow defines what science is or how science is done? This is armchair activism to try to convince the public of your claims. There is nothing scientific being presented here. Sheldon has nothing to offer so he attacks what he doesn't understand.One more thing about Sheldon... A Sheldon can do your income taxes, if you need a root canal, Sheldon's your man... but humpin' and pumpin' is not Sheldon's strong suit. It's the name. 'Do it to me Sheldon, you're an animal Sheldon, ride me big Shel-don.' Doesn't work. Apparently understanding science is not Sheldon's strong suit either.

sci4all 6 years, 2 months ago

"I have yet to see one person anywhere in academia or the scientific community demonstrate beyond refute that evolution is a fact vs. a theory."1) Please provide the definition of "theory" as you're using it here.2) "demonstrate beyond refute" - please define. In other words, what evidence would convince you that evolution happens?

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

I am aware of that. I don't see where you made that conclusion, but it's not one that I want to be interpreted from my position, so if you could tell my why you read that into my comments I'd appreciate it.

devobrun 6 years, 2 months ago

From Darwin's "The Descent of Man":"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened. "3: Stop with the facts, OK?All of you defenders of evolution: Open up to your fallibility. Don't argue with creationists. It is meaningless. Judge yourself and your own tendency to grand narratives. It diminishes your science.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 2 months ago

I believe in both. And I don't give a good crap what the rest of you think. I believe it because I do. I don't need any proof one way or the other. That is what is called faith.

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

gr: Fair enough, but it says "theory" and "idea," does it not? I did not see "fact" in either of those definitions. In the definition of the scientific method, if you recall, you start with a stated hypothesis, and then test it for its merits. So perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to this notion of dogmatic belief, which you have not provided here.Now, I spent my afternoon on another forum about, frankly, a cartoon that I like, asking some high-school kids how they were taught evolutionary theory in their science classes, and whether it was brought up as an alternative to religious theory."For me, middle school didn't really talk about it. High school did though, mainly focusing on how animals evolve (like the birds on the Galop islands), but us as well. I can't really remember how far we got into a religous aspect of it, even in college I don't think anyone brought much of a religious point up." "Eh, we just learned it as it is. Yes, there was that religious aspect, but we never actually focused on that.""I don't really remember them talking about it.""in biology, evolution of animals was taught but not evolution of humans. but she decided to talk about it in class one day & this christian girl in the class flipped the fck out over it because she was a strong believer in the whole Adam & Eve thing... =/" Three of them, that I didn't include here, said that what was also brought up was the idea of coexistence, understanding the mechanisms of evolution but allowing it to potentially remain the mechanism of a creator, and that they liked that idea. So yeah, do you know what you're objecting to?

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

I post commentary from scientists who have worded my thoughts so well I could not substantially improve on them. Periodically I quote both creationists and evolutionists depending on which one better makes my case.Evolution cannot stand up to the scrutiny of serious evaluation since it is not observable and repeatable - both requirements for the scientific method. Thus creation believers should not fear evolution believers unless the evolution believers demand no criticisms of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism be allowed. Then what we are dealing with is suppression of thought and inquiry which are unfortunate pillars of fascism and communism, neither of which I hope are welcome in America.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

Ooh, got a new, interesting response."I went to a church of England school but they still taught evolution, animal and human although it was a long time ago so i cant completely remember the classes but it was quite in depth... something like: big bang/complex micro organisums/fishy things/animals/humans. we had a church and vicar in residence at our school and had to attend chapel twice a week and crypt once a week but as long as our ciriculum contained that and religious studies the school didnt mind if we learnt about evoulotion or other things that contradict the bible."

David Lignell 6 years, 2 months ago

Tange,I thought you'd enjoy the popcorn reference, but don't ask me why.

Bossa_Nova 6 years, 2 months ago

why do all living mammals, fish, sponges, etc share many of the same genes? are the wacko fanatics going to deny genetics? do the wackos also deny the existence of atoms and microrganisms? i'm not a xtian but i dont understand why the xtians insist that if something isnt mentioned in the bible then it cant be true. is that not the same as trying to put limitations God's capabilities ?

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

jonas: "Bacteria evolve. It happens all the time, and it is observable. It is evolution,"gr: I suppose it presents a foundation for inquiry, but not evolution as to what most define as evolution.jonas: Who is this "most" that you are referring to?I list the two sites I looked up and they both support the definition I was using.Why did you then say: "Fair enough, but it says "theory" and "idea," does it not? I did not see "fact" in either of those definitions. "Nothing I used in the definition said anything about fact. Why did you throw that in? And just look at some of the postings of this forum, and you'll see many who think it IS an absolute fact. By the way, the KU link says evolution is a theory and a fact. It also says it is a fact "that cellular life appeared before 3.5 billion years ago, and that all modern life is descended from a common ancestor." That is not true. It is "concluded" based upon facts that life appeared 3.5 billion years ago, but does not make it a FACT. The conclusion could be wrong, right? "I was referring to this notion of dogmatic belief, which you have not provided here."Could be what you were intending to say, but not what you said as is demonstrated above.Tell me, does " there simply is no such evidence against evolution" (KU) seem dogmatic to you?Or how about, "Evolutionary theories are a way of explaining the fact of evolution"?Seems like the cart is put before the horse. Seems as if their definition of "evolution" is not the "theory" or "idea" as you suggest. Neither does what bondmen posted above."So yeah, do you know what you're objecting to?""and whether it was brought up as an alternative to religious theory."Seems to me that it is being skewed as to what religious is. How about objecting to the conclusion that all life descended from a common ancestor?

Jason Bailey 6 years, 2 months ago

@Supertrampofkansas: Listen, I couldn't care less what a couple of guys have to say on the subject of what PE really means. I can find two "renowned fellows" in any field to support any point of view.Read the Wikipedia article on PE -- it supports my original contention. Britannica does the same.Trust me...I've done my homework on this one.You still didn't address the point: PE is a leap of faith to explain the unexplainable.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

"You still didn't address the point: PE is a leap of faith to explain the unexplainable." - JasonIf you can demonstrate to me what this theory is really about then maybe we can talk about your contention. We can't really argue about validity until we have a basic understanding of what it is we are talking about. Since we disagree about what the theory means Jason we can't really talk about what evidences are available to support or dispute its validity as a theory.

Chocoholic 6 years, 2 months ago

One thing we can all probably agree on is that Mr. Wilson succeeded in stirring the pot. More accurately, the pot AND the kettle.In 10/22 9:18am post, gr said:"Surely you don't mean as barney listed: 'Most of the bacteria die, but a few of the resistant ones survive:.And POOFF, that germ has just evolved by adapting to a changing environment:'"Umm:. no. He said the resistant ones survived. They did not evolve. They were there. The non-resistant ones were eliminated. The population information was reduced, not increased."Well, yes, the resistant ones survived, and the non-resistant ones eliminated. As you say, those particular resistant germs didn't evolve (POOF) in the remaining days of their lives. But hey they would most likely reproduce, most likely with other resistant germs. Their little germ-y children would be more likely to be resistant as well, and they would reproduce with other little resistant germ-y children, and on and on through the reproductive multi-level marketing system (sorta like Amw@y but more successful). And voila, you end up with a resistant strain.In 10/22 11:42am post, ScottyMac said:"Creationists sometimes try to weasle around it by calling small genetic changes "microevolution" while denying so-called "macroevolution," which is accumulated changes over long periods of time. Many scientists disregard that distinction."One well-known scientist who did not disregard that distinction was Steven J. Gould: "As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's ["hopeful monster" guy] postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages. . . ." (Jason2007, there's your punctuated equilibrium.)It appears to me that while other scientists do not always necessarily agree with Gould's/Goldschmidt's theories, they do acknowledge their work as viable scientific research. Maybe that's why you specified "many scientists" rather than just scientists in general.And, while creationist/ID folks may now use the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution," those are not terms concocted by them.Jaylee! I know exactly who you're talking about. (bondmen, I think you missed her point.) I think at some point he also has Noah putting dinosaurs on the ark.I have a confession, one that involves a dark deed of censorship on my part. It was sort of a personal book banning thing, except I didn't tell anyone about the banning...(to be continued)

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"No, they support the definition I was using (especially when you take the KU site in its totality, instead of that SINGLE line from a large page of text."No, I find nothing about 'foundation for inquiry' on the page. Maybe somewhere hidden in the site? Or...., perhaps...., a "paraphrase"?I understand as a whole they are trying to make it sound reasonable. Either way, does the site or page as a whole negate the single statement that all life has descended from a common ancestor?"You, if you recall, have not listed a definition at all,"jonas, from the site:"What is evolution?Biological evolution is the theory that life on Earth has developed gradually from a common ancestor."If that is not what a definition is, then I don't know what you would consider one.Why are you trying to manipulate it? "Your paraphasing is always highly suspect, gr. Quote the whole thing in the interest of legitimacy. It says that all scientific data supports this idea, which I believe is true."jonas, I am not paraphrasing anything. I am making a reference to a topic for discussion. I guess I get that from my biology degree where you make reference to other articles (usually with just their name) and don't need to reprint their whole article. Maybe I misled you by quoting too much and you thought. I'll try to quote fewer words. I see no need to repeat what you can go read yourself. I don't think you read it initially. It does not use "idea", but "fact". It says "all scientific data support the fact". Their whole tone is that evolution is a FACT, and scientific data supports the supposed fact. "The theory is what is presented as the best hypothesis"But why do they use the word, fact?"on how to tie all of the observable facts of evolution into one large mechanism"Do you see you are doing it too? You say, "of evolution". Why didn't you just leave it as "all of the observable facts"?" post are the opinions of an editor or commentator"Showing that others think that's taught in schools. You asked."Do you not believe that a theory, with some supporting evidence (facts), should be presented in a science classroom for student evaluation as a theory?"Sure, it could be presented as a theory. Supporting facts are fine, too. But no SINGLE (or multiple) lines included stating evolution is a fact as KU does.

sci4all 6 years, 2 months ago

Check out the website, "Flunked, not Expelled: What Ben Stein Isn't Telling You About Intelligent Design" at http://www.ExpelledExposed.com .

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

"Biology teachers should have constant sorrow, too after reading this story (see link below). This is how to turn a bright young inquiring mind into a self-contradicting smart aleck. Can't this blues boy realize that complex, feedback-controlled systems don't just happen? This man of constant sorrow can stare at intelligent design right in front of his face, like that biological machine that "can discriminate, with remarkable specificity, between similar divalent cations and use chemical energy to pump calcium against a 10,000-fold concentration gradient," and turn right around and praise Darwin and Dobzhansky. Step back a second and realize how insane this is. This same dude would never step into a computer room and insult the designers, but can stare at even more complex systems and call them cobbled jumbles of time and chance. It's enough to make you want to yank his beard and knock on his skull and ask, "Anybody home?" (Caution: Do NOT do that to anybody except yourself; women and obsessive shavers excepted.) The interviewer, as usual for Current Bilge, just slurps it all up like fine whine.Teachers: pay attention. You cannot solve the creation-evolution controversy by ignoring it. This does more harm than good. Students want answers. They are curious about evolution. Those from religious homes may be worried about it, while those from secular humanist homes may have moms and dads ready to sue. You cannot push this subject off. One cannot understand modern history or science without understanding Darwin. The next Dyche Mullins in your classroom will remember how you sloughed off the subject as if it were taboo, then a Darwin dogmatist in college will sweep him off his feet with visions of the alluring explanatory power of evolution."continued...

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

"I couldn't care less what a couple of guys have to say on the subject of what PE really means. I can find two "renowned fellows" in any field to support any point of view." - JasonOh I missed this little beauty of a nugget Jason. Uh you might want to look a little closer at those names Jason. They are the originators and authors of the punctuated equilibrium theory so they would pretty much know what PE "really" means. So you really have done your homework eh?

acoupstick 6 years, 2 months ago

"The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism." Karl PopperApparently, Popper isn't quite as critical of evolution as devo believes.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

From the wikipedia Jason,Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5] The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years-a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"I list the two sites I looked up and they both support the definition I was using."No, they support the definition I was using (especially when you take the KU site in its totality, instead of that SINGLE line from a large page of text. A scientific theory that has observable evidence on which to base it, with a hypothesis by which testing and analysis are being carried out. A method of inquiry. You, if you recall, have not listed a definition at all, so I'm not sure how this can confirm what you haven't been using."By the way, the KU link says evolution is a theory and a fact."Yes, that's because that is true. It also lists its reasons for saying that, which again you somehow omitted from inclusion here, in that evolution is observable in nature, from the past and the present, and so it is fact. "It also says it is a fact "that cellular life appeared before 3.5 billion years ago"No, it doesn't. Your paraphasing is always highly suspect, gr. Quote the whole thing in the interest of legitimacy. It says that all scientific data supports this idea, which I believe is true. I assume, now, that we're getting into the part where you also doubt any legitimacy in the fossil record, our ability to date geological findings, genetic study, etc? I've heard that you do that, but have never had the opportunity to witness it for myself."Tell me, does " there simply is no such evidence against evolution" (KU) seem dogmatic to you?"Not when you include this. "True, there are things we do not yet know, but no one has found any scientific evidence to suggest that evolution does not occur, or that it does not explain all.""Seems like the cart is put before the horse. Seems as if their definition of "evolution" is not the "theory" or "idea" as you suggest."No, it just seems as if you have again misunderstood. The theory is what is presented as the best hypothesis on how to tie all of the observable facts of evolution into one large mechanism, under the idea that all life works under the same biological constraints. There is, of course, a whole bunch of other things that you didn't bring up, that contradict your position, from the very page that you linked, but I grow weary of cutting and pasting them. If you didn't read them once, you're not going to again, so moving on to the rest.

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

Last time, just to illustrate the point. bondmen: "Evolution cannot stand up to the scrutiny of serious evaluation since it is not observable and repeatable ."Yes, it is. Please go back up and read all of these posts again. Then, please address the observable and repeatable proof of evolution. If you are referring to evolutionary theory or the single ancestor theory, kindly make that disctinction now so we know what you are talking about. Blink twice if you have read and acknowledged this.

David Lignell 6 years, 2 months ago

Dang! You mean the earth's not set atop a giant turtle's back, resting on four flat stones? You can't seriously tell me we won't fall off the earth's edge when we wander beyond one of the four stones? And what's that you say? We're not the center of the Universe? Some sorry, average star is pulling us hither? Next thing you'll say is that we're organisms adapting to our environment through a series of genetic mutations.Sacrilege! Shall we stone or burn you at the stake? Please tell us which action you would suggest to purify your soul. Or we should try mercy and excuse your ignorance this time around? Yes. Let's supplicate your tarnished soul around a camp fire and watch the Jiffy Pop rise. "Jiffy Pop, Jiffy Pop, the magical treat...as much fun to make as it is to eat. Whoa...JIFFY POP!"Sorry, I think I lost the thread of this discussion. Are we revisiting the Scopes trial of 1929? You know what they say about those who haven't learned their history lesson. Yup, it's time once again to inherit the wind.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 2 months ago

rtwngr: "How did life generate from nothing?"The question is... how does life so quickly degenerate into less than nothing? David: "I thought you'd enjoy the popcorn reference, but don't ask me why"Why?Pass the salt! ( I'm quite sure that, any moment now, this forum will evolve into something altogether dissimilar. )

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

Jason,Your lizard-bird example does not fit anything in PE or evolution. You have shown no support for this contention. There is no support for this in evolutionary science period. You are simply wrong to claim that any credible scientists are claiming this is what happens. As far as I am concerned you are a complete moron Jason. No need to bring religion or some anti-evolution stereotype into this. Your statements alone demonstrate that you are dumber than a box of rocks. I'm sorry that I can't talk on the same level as a box of rocks let alone talk to you Jason.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

Jason,I guess the Second Law of Thermodynamics would make reproduction impossible too.

Jaylee 6 years, 2 months ago

i watched a television special just last night that focused on what i would consider to be wingnut madmen religious freaks. jerry falwell and his crew were the most tamed of all the examples.so this guy was talking about how the status quo used to be creationism and EVERYTHING in the bible was literally true (none of it was interpreted as a parable to teach you a lesson) and you were considered radical for thinking anything otherwise. but nowadays he and his lot are considered the radical, "religious extremists". and he was just so confused how people could think anything other than what he thought about the bible.then it showed him speaking to a couple hundred children about behemoth, the sauropod dinosaur, with zany pictures and basically put on a propoganda fest for the kids about how biblical characters mentioned behemoth so that was his evidence that scientists are wrong and dinosaurs lived until the age of man.then he picked up a guitar and started singing a song about it and they got all the kids clapping their hands and singing along about creationism and dinosaurs.... it was bad.at the end of the show they asked kids all these questions and one of them answered "what do you want to do when you grow up?" with "i want to become a scientist at the (he knew the name of the college) college of creationism in (he knew the name of the town) arizona so i can prove creationism is true"i was just like wwwwwwwwhat?! what in the hell did they do to these kids? its one thing to get kids into religion and take them to sunday school.its another to home school and have them read the bible every night.but it is messed up when you are drilling propoganda speeches etc. into a child's mind.its wrong.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

"This theory basically espouses that a lizard became a bird in one generation, thus the reason there is no fossil evidence for this transformation over time." JasonWell Jason if you are going to lie then at least make it something that could be believable. A lizard became a bird in one generation huh. What is that like 5 or 6 years or so. This comment alone either demonstrates your willingness to flat out lie to achieve your agenda or how stunningly stupid you really are.Try again Jason.Oh I would actually go read what Stephen J Gould and Niles Elderidge actually mean by punctuated equilibrium before you reply to my post.

sci4all 6 years, 2 months ago

"Who's Darwin you ask? He's the guy who came up with the modern evolutionary theory!"Only if you're still living in the 1800's is Darwin's theory "modern." NDE incorporated Mendelian genetics into Darwin's idea.Why does jason2007 have this delusion that he knows evolutionary biology more thoroughly than the thousands of scientists who actually, um, DO evolution research? When jason2007 needs surgery, who's he gonna call for advice - experienced surgeons, or just any bozo off the street? Likewise for the science-challenged person who wrote this opinion letter. Do you think she saves a lot of money by getting her teeth fixed by a high school dropout instead of a dentist?Hate to say it, supertramp, but you and jason2007 aren't conversing at the same level. jason2007 was right about that, but not in the way he probably meant.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 2 months ago

@Supertrampofkansas: See, that's the way the evolutionists always attack this issue = "You don't know what you're talking about. I'm much more intellectual than you are because you obviously cling to God and guns. Go back and read up before talking to me again, monkey."Read my lips: I don't care WHO came up with PE or what they have to say about it. Once a theory is in the public domain, it's out of their hands and takes a life of its own. Scientists have made PE to be a theory where a species makes an enormous evolutionary jump to a completely different species in a very short timeframe.By your own argument: better read up on what Darwin had to say about the lack of fossil evidence. He said if none is found to show the mutation between major species (specifically ape to human) then it is a serious challenge to his theory. Who's Darwin you ask? He's the guy who came up with the modern evolutionary theory! Better do your homework. In fact, perhaps we shouldn't talk at all until you get your facts in order because we're not talking on the same level.

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

"In private or home schools, the solution is simple: teach all about Darwinism all its strengths and weaknesses, the stuff the textbooks leave out. In public schools, the courts and the school boards have often become so paranoid they will try to persecute or dismiss any teacher who teaches scientific facts about Darwin, like they did to Roger DeHart. Sometimes the thought police go after not what you say, but what they think your motivation is. You have to know your principal, your state, and your school board. Thankfully some states are passing academic freedom laws. Many teachers have found the right way to present Darwinism honestly without dogmatism. Who could fault that? Science is supposed to be the opposite of dogmatism! Don't expect all parents and school boards to be rational, though, on this hot topic; the Discovery Institute can provide valuable help for negotiating the fine legal lines involved. Whether public or private or home school teacher, your goal is to help students become familiar with the evolutionary theory in its historical, political and scientific contexts; to understand the arguments Darwin and his critics have made, and while at the same time to develop critical thinking skills to be able to separate dogmatic claims from scientific evidence."http://creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081021a

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 2 months ago

Ok Jason,Find me your contention the a lizard turns into a bird in one generation in the wikipedia on punctuated equilibrium.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 2 months ago

Supertrampofkansas wrote:"Find me your contention the a lizard turns into a bird in one generation in the wikipedia on punctuated equilibrium."It's your side's whack job theory, not mine. The lizard to bird fits within the framework, as described, of PE. I don't have to defend my example...you (as a believer in the blessed religion which is evolution) have to defend the essential sacraments of your faith (i.e. PE).

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Jaylee, have you ever thought what you are watching on TV is designed to mislead and brainwash you? Maybe it's time to pick up a good book and try reading it. I bet I can guess what kind of fairy tales were you told when you were like 8.

youraveragewoman 6 years, 2 months ago

My goodness! Why all the anger? Can't people have differing opinions without getting hostile? We've all been listening to too much election debate!

jonas_opines 6 years, 2 months ago

"No, I find nothing about 'foundation for inquiry' on the page. Maybe somewhere hidden in the site? Or:., perhaps:., a "paraphrase"?"It's my own words, describing the scientific method and application of the scientific theory to existing evidence and observation. Are you suggesting that my own words in this matter or misleading? In what way, then?"Either way, does the site or page as a whole negate the single statement that all life has descended from a common ancestor?"Does it need to? It admits that it does not know everything, and then says that available facts support the theory, and do not go against it. That's all that it says. "But why do they use the word, fact?"Because all evidence points to it being a fact, apparently. And because there is no information currently available that goes against it in any meaningful way. Your definition of fact (which admittedly, they probably shouldn't have used in that single sentence in the document where it does indeed say fact, after a half page of disclaimers on falibility, etc. that you write off as wanting it to sound nice) appears to be that we had to be there to see it, pretty much. Is that right?"But no SINGLE (or multiple) lines included stating evolution is a fact as KU does."Show me where that happened. The part where you abridged a single line from a large page of a four page document that could be read, with no context, as potentially overstepping it's bounds? "Showing that others think that's taught in schools. You asked."They think? Did you read the link, gr? Where it says that the problem is that Evolution was NOT taught in high-school, which allowed the Theory to sweep ignorant people off of their feet in college, away from an intelligent design perspective, that That's why they believe that it should be taught in schools, so that Intelligent Design theories can be brought up earlier. Did you miss that part, gr? Are you now suggesting that Intelligent Design theorists and Evolutionary theorists are the same people, because if you are we're going to have to go back to square 1. At this point, though, it appears that you are demonstrating a fundamental and complete lack of comprehension about the argument or the content of the link that Bondmen provided.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 2 months ago

@youraveragewoman: The anger is due to the anonymity that these forums bring. If everyone in this forum met at Starbuck's to discuss this topic, you'd see tempers flare but not to the level they do on the LJW boards.@everyone else in the thread:I'm surprised that none of my evolutionary skeptic colleagues have brought up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the debate nor that many of the examples given thus far are examples of micro-evolution (bacteria/viruses evolving, for example) vs. macro-evolution (fish becoming a salamander), which is really the crux of the issue. I'm also surprised that Kansas778 isn't in here threatening people to "shut up.." or he'll "..make you look like a fool" -- very entertaining stuff there from a similar thread last week.I have yet to see one person anywhere in academia or the scientific community demonstrate beyond refute that evolution is a fact vs. a theory. The most recent stretch that scientists have started to make to explain extreme "evolution" from one species to another with no fossil record evidence is punctuated equilibrium. This theory basically espouses that a lizard became a bird in one generation, thus the reason there is no fossil evidence for this transformation over time.Punctuated equilibrium is faith disguised as scientific conjecture. It takes as much faith to believe in punctuated equilibrium as it does to say that God created the universe -- there's no definitive proof beyond what you see around you and in the fossil records.Let's open that can of worms, shall we?

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Genetic mutation most usually results in a loss of information and in any event is incapable of changing a whale into a monkey for example. The DNA double helix with all its amino acids and proteins lined up in exact order with each place along the chain specifying definite and specific characteristics for a particular living creature is itself far too complex and contains far too much information to be explained as having self organized even given billions and billions of years. It is a dream an evolution dream necessary to obliterate the Creator God. It is a belief and a faith DNA evolved all by itself. Are you so blind with pride and love of self that you can not see even this?

Chocoholic 6 years, 2 months ago

(continued from 1:49pm post)Awhile back I discovered that a member of our church had donated a copy of a children's book that probably was written by the guy on Jaylee's TV screen on the same topic. (bondmen, you can't escape by reading books either.) Disclaimer: the existence of the book in our library does reflect the beliefs or opinions of the vast majority of members at our church.I couldn't rest knowing that it was sitting there on the library shelf. Of course if my kids checked it out, I could use it as a teaching opportunity to say "this is one view that some people believe, BUT..." But someone else's kid might check it out and not have someone to point that out, and be scarred for life (well, maybe not scarred, but possibly confused and eventually disillusioned).So...I took it! I TOOK IT!!! There, I said it. I took it and never returned it. I still have it laying around somewhere.Forgive me, Lord.OK, that's all. :)

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"Because all evidence points to it being a fact, apparently."Conclusions based upon observable facts are considered facts because the conclusions apparently are facts?Something seem wrong with that statement?No different than, a Designer created life because all observable facts point to it being a fact, apparently."(which admittedly, they probably shouldn't have used in that single sentence in the document where it does indeed say fact, after a half page of disclaimers on falibility, etc."Read the section where it says "Is evolution a fact or a theory" and tell me they are not trying to convey the idea that evolution is an established and non-disputable fact and only the theories supporting that fact are debatable and in no way detract from the fact of evolution. (especially the last paragraph of the section)Jonas, I think I am seeing where the problem is. When a site lists:"What is evolution?Biological evolution is the theory that life on Earth has developed gradually from a common ancestor."and then you trying to manipulate it and saying it doesn't really say life on Earth gradually developed from a common ancestor. Therefore, when anyone objects to all evidence pointing to life descending from a common ancestor, you object and say that's not the definition.and similarly you trying to say that:Genesis 1:21-23: So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.doesn't really mean God created the creatures and that saying there was evening and morning marking a literal day and calling the day by number, you say doesn't really mean that it was really a literal day....I mean, do you see that it really is impossible to carrying on a conversation when a direct literal statement you construe to mean anything but what it says?

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Something I have yet to read in anything you have written none2. Use your God given brain and not your evolved brain!

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"and then says that available facts support the theory, and do not go against it. That's all that it says."Not really what it says:"That is, all scientific data support the fact that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old, that cellular life appeared before 3.5 billion years ago, and that all modern life is descended from a common ancestor.""Evolutionary theories are a way of explaining the fact of evolution."You say the facts support the theory of evolution, but they say the theory supports the fact of evolution.You have been trying to be supportive of a system you believed to be objective. You are now coming face to face with it letting you down. Being betrayed. Try as you might, you cannot reword their statements to make them objective, to make them scientific.Welcome to the Santa Clause Syndrome.You have just been told that Santa Clause does not exist. You are kicking and screaming that yes, it does exist. I'm not talking about whether evolution is true or not, but about the establishment saying evolution is a fact, the theory backs it up, then finding mechanisms to support the FACT of evolution. I'm not trying to convince you here that evolution did or did not happen. Just that the system which you have supported and defended is not being as honest as you once thought.

optimator 6 years, 2 months ago

If the universe was created with supernatural powers, why is there no evidence of verifiable supernatural phenomenon in our daily lives, or anywhere in the universe for that matter.

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

What evidence are you looking for?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 2 months ago

justfornow, I just played your last post backward at a slow speed, and it revealed that "Saul is dead."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQahvFdQVu8

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

optimator what would make you a believer in the supernatural if you had evidence of people teleporting, walking on water or throwing fireballs when the world around you and everything in it - especially things alive - is not enough to show there must be a cause - a creator - a supernaturally powerful being?

Corey Williams 6 years, 2 months ago

"evidence of people teleporting, walking on water or throwing fireballs"That would just make me believe in scientific advances. Maybe if god came down to explain themselves...that would make me believe in "a creator - a supernaturally powerful being".Remember, in the middle of believe and belief, there is a lie.

optimator 6 years, 2 months ago

Evidence of the supernatural. People teleporting, walking on water, throwing fireballs. Something like that.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 2 months ago

Whoa... justfornow... you lapsed into past tense, there.

gr 6 years, 1 month ago

"yet I'm going to Heaven because I asked for forgiveness."Something tells me you didn't, really. I guess that's between you and God and you know for sure."Maybe if god came down to explain themselves."Didn't He?What if God also wrote you a letter?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.