Evolution 'not established truth'

Evolution 'not established truth'

There are 9177 comments on the GoErie.com story from May 30, 2008, titled Evolution 'not established truth'. In it, GoErie.com reports that:

Public schools should teach established truth. Evolution is not established truth.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GoErie.com.

“Dor sho gha!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Iowa City, IA

#4658 Nov 21, 2008
Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that will put an end to disagreements on evolution is the end of this wicked world.
Wilson.
Dude, you are so f**ked in the head it's isn't even funny.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Northridge, CA

#4659 Nov 21, 2008
Molly wrote:
Gee almost 4600 post and no ones settled this arguement yet. Perhaps everyone should just agree to disagree and get on with your lives since no one has proven anything one way or the other nor ever will.
Yeah, it's kind of like how we haven't settled if slavery is right or wrong because there are still KKK guys in the South who think we should bring back slavery.

As long as one person has a different opinion, nothing can ever be determined, right?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Northridge, CA

#4660 Nov 21, 2008
Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that will put an end to disagreements on evolution is the end of this wicked world.
Wilson.
The end you've been predicting is "right around the corner" for 2000 years now.

Oh, but _THIS_ time you're right? Right?

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#4661 Nov 21, 2008
Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that will put an end to disagreements on evolution is the end of this wicked world.
Wilson.
Or you can take the scientific approach. The creationists could describe an experiment by which creationism could be tested. Then we would have an answer. That's what everyone else in science does, so why shouldn't the creationists do the same?

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#4662 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
.
Actually science admits they DO NOT KNOW what the earliest life was.
.
Again, science readily admits that they CAN NOT prove who is the ancestor to modern man.
.
In fact that's how (your) theories operate ;; remember? prove NOTHING.
Ohh, I get it! You want to play science sez!! OK, let's play!
*Science sez living things descended with modification from common ancestors
*Science sez that there are connecting forms between major groups
*Science sez humans evolved from H. erectus
*Science sez mammals evolved from reptiles
*Science sex birds evolved from dinosaurs
*Science sez changes in regulatory genes casue evolution
*Science sez primitive bacteria were the first recognizable cellular forms of life on this planet - from which all other forms evolved

Wanna play some more??
once_more

Newman, CA

#4663 Nov 21, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion is the opposite of your analysis.
I can understand why you'd be upset; I'd be upset too; if I was wrong as many times as you are.
.
Now pay attention, I'm going to help you.
.
The Pope, whom you say "believes evolution"(even though he doesn't), asks the same question of evolution..
.
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God."
.
He knows there must be a mechanism in order for evolution to occur and he also knows that science and science illiterates like you; DON'T!
.
:/
once_more

Newman, CA

#4664 Nov 21, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Give us an example of something which, when you remove the "driving force" ceases to work.
Gravity? Fusion? What?
.
All of these require a driving force.
.
If you can't provide examples of this magical force you are claiming exists, then there's no reason to attribute anything to it.
.
Here again you are running in reverse.
.
If you cannot show what force is the "act or agency which produces the effect" you call evolution; then it is not possible that it could have ever occurred.
.
:!

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#4665 Nov 21, 2008
tangled bank wrote - "....and as I stated peviously - the same peer review you allude to here (concerning a research paper which pointed out inconsistencies in Neanderthal DNA sequencing)- has demolished every attempt by a creationist/IDer when they presented any sort of "research paper
once_more wrote:
.
You mean the evolutuion mafia. they made you a fallacy you couldn't refute.
Oh - so if they publish a paper you like - like the peer review on the Neanderthal DNA sequencing inconsistencies - that's OK b/c you can use that to try and contradict evolutionary findings. But somehow - peer review of creationist/ID papers is unfair??
Can you find me a research paper that Stephen J. Gould wrote about punctuated equilibrium, which went against the conventional wisdom of the modern sysnthesis of the 60's-70s - that was rejected by the "evolution mafia?"
once_more

Newman, CA

#4666 Nov 21, 2008
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me how evolutionary change requires something other than mutation, selection, and speciation to occur.
If evolution were occurring something must cause these variables to act in the way that you say they do. Correlation, alone, between two, or more, variables does not imply that one causes the other to occur.

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#4667 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
.
All of these require a driving force.
.
<quoted text>
Why? What is the "driving force" of gravity and stellar fusion? What is the driving force of cloud formation?
Here again you are running in reverse.
.
If you cannot show what force is the "act or agency which produces the effect" you call evolution; then it is not possible that it could have ever occurred.
.
:!
Mutation is an act that produces variation. Selection is an act that shifts allele ratios within a population. Speciation is the act which causes divergence.

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#4668 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution were occurring something must cause these variables to act in the way that you say they do.
Those would be the physical laws that everything follows.

Correlation, alone, between two, or more, variables does not imply that one causes the other to occur.
It does imply causation when you can manipulate the variables and predict the outcomes. This is exactly what one can do with mutation, selection, and speciation. For mutation you can change the size of nucleotides and observe increases in fidelity. This indicates that the loose fit between the polymerase and incoming nucleotide results in miscopying of the other DNA strand. If you increase ionizing radiation mutations increase, and this cause has been modeled to the molecular level. Same for chemical carcinogens. For selection you can predict the ratio of alleles prior the application of selection. For speciation you can directly observe the accumulation of divergent DNA in each isolated population.

All observable, all testable, and each has a cause with the correlation.
once_more

Newman, CA

#4669 Nov 21, 2008
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohh, I get it! You want to play science sez!! OK, let's play!
*Science sez living things descended with modification from common ancestors
*Science sez that there are connecting forms between major groups
*Science sez humans evolved from H. erectus
*Science sez mammals evolved from reptiles
*Science sex birds evolved from dinosaurs
*Science sez changes in regulatory genes casue evolution
*Science sez primitive bacteria were the first recognizable cellular forms of life on this planet - from which all other forms evolved
.
.
Yep, they say lots of things they can't prove.
.
Wanna play some more??
YOU LOSE!! you forgot to say Science sez.
.
:)

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Northridge, CA

#4670 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
.
"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God."
.
He knows there must be a mechanism in order for evolution to occur and he also knows that science and science illiterates like you; DON'T!
Do you believe this? Or are you, like Wilson, posting something that someone else says without supporting it?
Wilson

Port Arthur, TX

#4671 Nov 21, 2008
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as fundamentalists agree to stop their movement against science education I will gladly agree to disagree. As it is, science education is under attack right now in Texas, Florida, and Louisianna.
Red herring.

Wilson
Wilson

Port Arthur, TX

#4672 Nov 21, 2008
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
What it means is that there are a number of mechanisms through which species evolve (evolution - the fact). Some are well-known and well-supported, like gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift (Evolution -- the theory).
But what we don't know does not invalidate what we do know. You, on the other hand, know little and try and justify your lack of knowledge by playing word games, just proving over and over again how little you even suspect, let alone know.
HOhio,
Let's compare!

I know that a house is evidence of intelligent design.
I know that something much more complicated, like the human brain, is evidence of design by a Super-intelligence.
I know that symbiotic relationships in nature and an ecoSYSTEM that renews itself, demonstrates a mind that is incomparable.
I know that the fossil record does NOT support evolution.
I know that life could not have begun on its own, amply demonstrated by the Miller/Urey experiments.
I know that mutations do NOT improve any organism, making them superior to the natural type, amply demonstrated by the Max Planck experiments.
I know that evolution is not amenable to experimentation, but is based solely upon belief.
I know that natural selection is a myth.
I know that evolution is a belief system - a religion.
I know that research on evolution is done primarily for the money.
I know animals produce only their own “kind” and can never “become” another, regardless of the duration.
I know that there is a God in Heaven who will soon take over rulership of the earth.
I know that God made the human body perfect and it has been corrupted by sin.
I know that anyone who believes that we humans are responsible for our own existence is an idiot.
Wait - my bad! I should have asked you.
Are we humans responsible for our own existence?
YES!______
NO!_______

Geez! I better stop now. Rile me up and I’ll show you just how much more I know.
Now, Hohio - what do you think you really know?

Wilson
Wilson

Port Arthur, TX

#4673 Nov 21, 2008
Nuggin
EVERY society has laws. Hammurabi's Code is a well documented, WRITTEN code of laws which predates the 10 commandments AND goes even further than the 10 commandments in protecting the citizens.
Nuggams,
Don't play dumb.(Well - he's NOT playing)
Who's talking about chronology or security? Diversionary tactics like this are much too familiar to work now.
"Every society has laws." Brilliant! I said so already. Trying to avoid the question?
WHAT LAW, IN ANY PLACE AND TIME, COMPARES TO THE 10TH COMMANDMENT?
Which government on earth has ever made a law, put it on their books, bind their citizens by it with a covenant or solemn agreement, when non-compliance could not even be detected, let alone enforced?
Nuggams
So, if any society anywhere introduced a law which, if violated, could only be detected by a deity, then that would be evidence that their deity was real. That's what you are arguing?
+++Wilson
I'm not arguing at all. YOU'RE trying to. That little word "if" is huge in this case. I don't think you took the time to think out that last question to its logical conclusion.
You just said: "...could only be detected by a diety." didn't you?
Then WHO ELSE WOULD DETECT IT? You left no room for anyone else, Bozo.
Has it ever been done in all of human history?
+++Nuggams
Really? Are you sure you want to do that?
+++Wilson
Looking at what you just wrote - YES! Don't try to bluff me.
+++Nuggams
Do you know much about Buddhism?
+++Wilson
Irrelevant, immaterial and not relating to the matter under discussion.
+++Nuggams
Have you heard of the term "detachment"?
+++Wilson
Irrelevant, immaterial and not relating to the matter under discussion.
+++Nuggams
Better think twice before going down this path.
+++Wilson
Posturing again? With YOU at the other end - I'M GOING WITH IT! You couldn't possibly come up with anything new or different from what you've tried before.
LET'S GO, NUGGAMS!

Wilson
Wilson

Port Arthur, TX

#4674 Nov 21, 2008
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The driving force for mutation is a loose fit between the polymerase and incoming nucleotide, chemical carcinogens, and ionizing radiation.
Simply put, life "emerged" from dead chemicals - all by itself.
Fancier words noadays but do you think that's new?

Wilson
once_more

Newman, CA

#4675 Nov 21, 2008
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does imply causation when you can manipulate the variables and predict the outcomes. This is exactly what one can do with mutation, selection, and speciation. For mutation you can change the size of nucleotides and observe increases in fidelity. This indicates that the loose fit between the polymerase and incoming nucleotide results in miscopying of the other DNA strand. If you increase ionizing radiation mutations increase, and this cause has been modeled to the molecular level. Same for chemical carcinogens. For selection you can predict the ratio of alleles prior the application of selection. For speciation you can directly observe the accumulation of divergent DNA in each isolated population.
All observable, all testable, and each has a cause with the correlation.
Yeah right. Too bad YOU weren't around 3 1/2 Billion years ago to help out. Then YOU could have been the cause.....but YOU weren't ;; and you aren't.
.
:)
once_more

Newman, CA

#4676 Nov 21, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe this? Or are you, like Wilson, posting something that someone else says without supporting it?
Ref: post 4670. What do you want me to support?
.
:)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4677 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
Ref: post 4670. What do you want me to support?
.
:)
What is the cause of god?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min Dogen 204,844
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Thinking 43,194
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Chazofsaints 18,515
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Chimney1 151,481
Sun could not have formed as thought 13 hr U think Im wrong 19
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Wed It aint necessari... 912
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Aug 22 Bren 1
More from around the web