Looking up the definition of bigot I saw a saying, 'You can tell a bogot, but you can't tell um much.'
3-30-2004 Much of evolution theory still is unproven by science
I was intrigued to learn from Mr. Haynie's letter that evolution was 98 percent proven. A boxcar is only a couple of percent of even a relatively short train.
As a poor ignorant Christian, I must confess that my belief is based on faith and not scientific proof. Please enlighten me on the parts of the evolutionary theory that I was not aware had been proven.
I was taught that there basically are three steps in evolution:
1, a living cell somehow appeared randomly from nowhere in a warm pool of water millions of years ago. I was not taught the theory's opinion of the origin of the water and dirt supporting it. Smarter people than us have emulated the desired environment with the hopes that a living cell would assemble randomly or somehow appear but I was not aware of anyone being successful. Please inform me how that idea has been proven.
2, evolution of that cell evolved into all of the different life forms or more than one cell randomly appeared in step one. I have read that scientists still are looking for the link between man and apes. I would think you would have to find the link between different species like humans and trees or insects really to prove evolution. Please inform us when and where that has been done.
3, adaptations of the existing species. Of course there are fossil records and other observations that prove that life forms have made some very interesting adaptations. Of course that is just the caboose of evolutionary theory. The known adaptations also are not very significant when compared to an adaptation from one species to another.
My main concern is that some scientists see the caboose and by faith assume there is a train in front of it. Hmmm ... somewhat like a religion.
In the absence of scientific proof, perhaps we should admit that many years ago something came from nothing and we do not have scientific proof as to what that was. That is of course quite difficult for people that are "sot" in their thinking.
Anyway, I anxiously await your providing scientific proof of my questions above. Without contrary proof, I am quite content being "sot" in my thinking.
Mike McConnell
Gainesville
I was intrigued to learn from Mr. Haynie's letter that evolution was 98 percent proven. A boxcar is only a couple of percent of even a relatively short train.
As a poor ignorant Christian, I must confess that my belief is based on faith and not scientific proof. Please enlighten me on the parts of the evolutionary theory that I was not aware had been proven.
I was taught that there basically are three steps in evolution:
1, a living cell somehow appeared randomly from nowhere in a warm pool of water millions of years ago. I was not taught the theory's opinion of the origin of the water and dirt supporting it. Smarter people than us have emulated the desired environment with the hopes that a living cell would assemble randomly or somehow appear but I was not aware of anyone being successful. Please inform me how that idea has been proven.
2, evolution of that cell evolved into all of the different life forms or more than one cell randomly appeared in step one. I have read that scientists still are looking for the link between man and apes. I would think you would have to find the link between different species like humans and trees or insects really to prove evolution. Please inform us when and where that has been done.
3, adaptations of the existing species. Of course there are fossil records and other observations that prove that life forms have made some very interesting adaptations. Of course that is just the caboose of evolutionary theory. The known adaptations also are not very significant when compared to an adaptation from one species to another.
My main concern is that some scientists see the caboose and by faith assume there is a train in front of it. Hmmm ... somewhat like a religion.
In the absence of scientific proof, perhaps we should admit that many years ago something came from nothing and we do not have scientific proof as to what that was. That is of course quite difficult for people that are "sot" in their thinking.
Anyway, I anxiously await your providing scientific proof of my questions above. Without contrary proof, I am quite content being "sot" in my thinking.
Mike McConnell
Gainesville
WTF?
There is no link between man and ape...welll, other than we share a common ancestor and we have evolved down one path, apes down another.
The Seven Daughters of Eve
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
There is no link between man and ape...welll, other than we share a common ancestor and we have evolved down one path, apes down another.
The Seven Daughters of Eve
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
4-10-2004 Evolution theory is rooted in the religion of atheism
Recently, I have read many positions in the editorial pages defending evolution as scientific fact and grounded in science. Well it is not. It is a scientific theory with little or no evidence to back it up.
Darwin was an atheist and his work was clearly biased in that respect.
The other fact that most of the pro-evolution proponents leave out is the fact that there is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to support evolution on a broad scale (most pro-creation scientists agree on evolution within a particular species, micro vs. macro evolution). Common sense would also dictate that there would be life forms in transitional stages. For instance, there are no mammals that are half-way between ape and human.
Evolution is a theory rooted in religion and that religion is atheism. If school science curriculum was truly scientific, it would present both points of view and let the student decide which to believe. Evolutionists don't want this because when the evidence is laid bare, one would tend to believe the intelligent design theory instead and therefore might seek knowledge of the designer.
After all, atheism is the only religion allowed to be espoused in public schools and we wouldn't want students to decide for themselves which theory to believe.
Gary Entrekin
Flowery Branch
Recently, I have read many positions in the editorial pages defending evolution as scientific fact and grounded in science. Well it is not. It is a scientific theory with little or no evidence to back it up.
Darwin was an atheist and his work was clearly biased in that respect.
The other fact that most of the pro-evolution proponents leave out is the fact that there is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to support evolution on a broad scale (most pro-creation scientists agree on evolution within a particular species, micro vs. macro evolution). Common sense would also dictate that there would be life forms in transitional stages. For instance, there are no mammals that are half-way between ape and human.
Evolution is a theory rooted in religion and that religion is atheism. If school science curriculum was truly scientific, it would present both points of view and let the student decide which to believe. Evolutionists don't want this because when the evidence is laid bare, one would tend to believe the intelligent design theory instead and therefore might seek knowledge of the designer.
After all, atheism is the only religion allowed to be espoused in public schools and we wouldn't want students to decide for themselves which theory to believe.
Gary Entrekin
Flowery Branch
Personally, I believe in evolution because I'm afraid God will find the idea that we were created in his image offensive.
I haven't read the previous 200+ posts, and hopefully this quoted text has been corrected by others before me, but if not--it deserves attention, as it is fatally flawed, and reflects a total lack of understanding of science in general.
fjord
fjord
Evolution is near fact.
People with downsyndrom have experienced a gene mutation :/
Viruses mutate to evade threats.
The deeper you dig into rock layers the more simplistic the organisms. <-- how do anti-evolutionists explain this?
People with downsyndrom have experienced a gene mutation :/
Viruses mutate to evade threats.
The deeper you dig into rock layers the more simplistic the organisms. <-- how do anti-evolutionists explain this?
1. Realistically youre speaking of the theory of big bang + evolution as the origin of life.. not specifically evolution all on its own.
2. The DNA of a chimpanzee and a human differ by 2%
3. In microbiology this happens all the time. Try to kill AIDS? Oh well it was working.. until it adapted to resist that particular method. EDIT: also as in my previous post my question of why the deeper into rock layers exists only more primitive species without evolution.
This is not part of the fact of evolution or the theory of natural selection. This is abiogenesis, an area that we're just beginning to study. There are many hypotheses about abiogenesis, but we don't have enough facts yet to come up with a good theory.
This is another misunderstanding. First, there is no chain of descent between men and apes, but rather both derive from a common ancestor. Second, we have many fossils intermediate between homo sapiens and that common ancestor. We also have DNA evidence.
This is yet another misconception. We've observed a number of instances of speciation in the relatively short time since the theory of natural selection was proposed.
got that backward bro, the religion of atheism is rooted in the theory of evolution.
to believe in evolution is not to be an atheist, but the central atheist tenants generally demand you believe in evolution;
no matter how we all got here, which is for science to figure out, 1.) the bible isn't wrong and 2.) it was the divine will of God.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Nobodie's ever posited this so this statement is a straw man. Most scientist think that life began with something much simpler than a cell like just a bunch of molecules. And there have been successful attempts to produces self replicating complex molecules in a test tube.
Why wouldn't inbreeding count? If your population interbreeds, you'll get change but no speciation. For speciation, you need reproductive isolation of one group from another. Otherwise, they'll exchange traits by interbreeding and never diverge into two species.
There's Ernst Mayr's classic example of the formation of five new species of cichlids in the wild. Speciation is shown by morphology and lack of interbreeding. Mayr, Ernst, Populations, Species, and Evolution, 1970. Speciation events have also been observed in Drosophila in laboratory experiments.
I guess then, the theory of evolution predated atheism.
And how do you know the Bible isn't wrong? Surely it's the Koran that isn't wrong. Or the Book of Mogogo.
I already listed an example as well as others already. Survival of the fittest is even easier to prove but since you ignored my previous posts I digress - back to your owning by cquark.
it is a religous viewpoint hence the name ATHEISM.
what is funny is the defenders of darwinism will even lie to protect one of the most intellectually bankrupt theories since having no objective morals means you can lie if you really want to and nothing is "wrong" with it.
latest example:
the constant attempt to paint those who hold to the intelligent design theory as "religionists" even though many scientific points are made(even by atheistic "dissenters") darwinists have no real answer for. thier answer instead is to accuse you of "blasphemy" because you are no longer "otrthodox" and branded a "heretic"
"survival of the fakest"
"According to the news media, only religious fundamentalists
question Darwinian evolution. People who
criticize Darwinism, we are told, want to bomb science
back to the Stone Age and replace it with the Bible. The
growing body of scientific evidence contradicting Darwinian
claims is steadfastly ignored. When biochemist Michael
Behe pointed out in The New York Times last year that the
embryo ?evidence? for evolution was faked, Harvard Darwinist
Stephen Jay Gould admitted that he had known this
for decades (as noted above) ? but accused Behe of being a
?creationist? for pointing it out."
and here are many scientists who have demonstrated the many problems with darwinism and signed a document of "dissent"
?Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
?Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.
?Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member
?Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.
?Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.
?Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.
?Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois
?Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
?Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.
?Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK
?Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville
?David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
?James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida
?Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
?Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
?Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder
?Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College
?William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:
?George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida
?Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
?James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah
?Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington
?Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
?Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universität München
?Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis
?Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member
?Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho
?Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho
?David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
?Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
?Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia
?Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M
?Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)
?Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School
?Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
?Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences
?William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens
?Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia
?Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.
?Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College
?Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin
?Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.
?Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College
?Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
?William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.
?Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
?Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine
?Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.
?Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.
?Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.
?Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor
?John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico
?Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin
?Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia
?Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.
?David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author
?Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland
?John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.
?James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm
?John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory
?Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa
?Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.
?Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City
?Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
?Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute
?Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.
?Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.
?Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior
?James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.
?Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm
?Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:
?Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
?Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
?William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City
?Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
?Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
?Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
?Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology
?Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College
?Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
?David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
?Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
?Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute
?Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington
?Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.
?Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan
?Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College
?Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley
?Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina
?Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.
?James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center
?Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha
?Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.
?David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.
?Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.
?Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley:
?James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.
?Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M
Har har har Indeed, morals only come from religion, no atheist can ever know right from wrong.
Zephyr
Zephyr
Some would say that those morals are the same as whatever those Jewish elders a few thousand years ago, or those Christian writers in the early church made up.
Zephyr
Assuming that its facts are correct, "Survival of the Fakest" is an interesting and disturbing criticism of how science is presented in high school biology textbooks, but it never attempts to mount an attack on current evolutionary biology. The article's frequent mentions of Origin of Species betray a lack of understanding of how science works, including the important fact that it's not a dogma based on a historical text.
Darwin deserves great credit for his insight--the idea of evolution--but we know that he wasn't always right, and he knew this as well, as the major changes between editions of his famous book demonstrate. Scientific theories change and adapt as new facts are discovered. The modern theory of evolution has grown far beyond its basis in Darwin's theories of natural and sexual selection, in the same way that modern physics has grown beyond its basis in Galileo and Newton. You can't disprove the modern understanding of natural selection by critizing a text over a century old, than you can disprove modern physics by criticizing Newton's Principia Mathematica.
If you want to successfully disprove the modern theory of natural selection, you're going to have to attack the modern literature, not outdated classic texts or popular essays by Harvard professors.
In summary, while the article may show that we need to seriously revise our high school biology textbooks in the same way that Lies My Teacher Told Me showed that we need to revise our history textbooks, it offers no substantial criticism of modern evolutionary biology and betrays a deep misunderstanding of how science works.
Darwin deserves great credit for his insight--the idea of evolution--but we know that he wasn't always right, and he knew this as well, as the major changes between editions of his famous book demonstrate. Scientific theories change and adapt as new facts are discovered. The modern theory of evolution has grown far beyond its basis in Darwin's theories of natural and sexual selection, in the same way that modern physics has grown beyond its basis in Galileo and Newton. You can't disprove the modern understanding of natural selection by critizing a text over a century old, than you can disprove modern physics by criticizing Newton's Principia Mathematica.
If you want to successfully disprove the modern theory of natural selection, you're going to have to attack the modern literature, not outdated classic texts or popular essays by Harvard professors.
In summary, while the article may show that we need to seriously revise our high school biology textbooks in the same way that Lies My Teacher Told Me showed that we need to revise our history textbooks, it offers no substantial criticism of modern evolutionary biology and betrays a deep misunderstanding of how science works.
Because every atheist who's tried to evangelize based on 'biblical contradiction' has failed to come up with one thing to show the bible to have even one contradiction. I started off thinking their where a number of contradictions, after actually being shown said 'contradictions' an honest look would show the bible to be without contradiction. Try an honest look at it yourself.
in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter