Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197182 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107818 Jan 2, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The truth and history taught me that, all the nations today that takes English as first or native language, does so because of England. Some good examples are USA and Canada.
It is your logic that a language "belongs to" the peoples of the land where it originated. While I understand your premise, it does not hold that the modern peoples of those land hold any rights of ownership. Your logic fails. Again.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107819 Jan 2, 2014
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107820 Jan 2, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/16649/ title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin- /
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Dobzhansky's quote doesn't say that science can't be done without knowing, understanding or even need the theory of evolution. It simply states that evolution brings sense to the many facets of biology that we have discovered. It is the basis of modern biology, because it explains what is discovered, and can be used to guide further inquiry and discovery. It is not some essential parameter without which experiments cannot be conducted and research pursued.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107821 Jan 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/16649/ title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin- /
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Of course the fact that antibiotics are constantly updated BECAUSE diseases adapt due to evolution is evidence that someone somewhere is most certainly taking evolution into account. What we're basically hearing here is another ton of "macro/micro" bs, but even if evolution were irrelevant to medicine altogether, it's still demonstrated in plenty of other fields, such as fossil-finding, cladistics and comparative anatomy. Something you would know if you really were doing research into biology.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107823 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/16649/ title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin- /
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Discovering that some molds are poisonous to some bacteria requires no insight from evolution.

Discovering that those bacteria can develop resistance to the same molds after many generations of exposure does. Comprehensive research has shown that bacteria adapt according to the principles of random mutation and natural selection (not some other way). This knowledge can assist with future antibiotic research.

Kudos for your involvement in WWII research and the lives your work may have saved.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107825 Jan 4, 2014
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked

http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493...

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107826 Jan 4, 2014
Be Different of Die.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/...

Dec. 22, 2013 A new study has found that species living together are not forced to evolve differently to avoid competing with each other, challenging a theory that has held since Darwin's Origin of Species.
Share This:

By focusing on ovenbirds, one of the most diverse bird families in the world, the Oxford University-led team conducted the most in-depth analysis yet of the processes causing species differences to evolve.

They found that although bird species occurring together were consistently more different than species living apart, this was simply an artefact of species being old by the time they meet. In fact, once variation in the age of species was accounted for, coexisting species were actually more similar than species evolving separately, opposite to Darwin's view which remains widely-held today.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107827 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Dobzhansky's quote doesn't say that science can't be done without knowing, understanding or even need the theory of evolution. It simply states that evolution brings sense to the many facets of biology that we have discovered. It is the basis of modern biology, because it explains what is discovered, and can be used to guide further inquiry and discovery. It is not some essential parameter without which experiments cannot be conducted and research pursued.
The overal point of the article cited being Darwin Evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person on a double date.
Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107828 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The overal point of the article cited being Darwin Evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person on a double date.
<quoted text>
Then the article failed to make the point and the attempt was haphazzard at best.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107829 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked
http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493...
This might be worth considering if it were published in science publication.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107830 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Be Different of Die.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/...
Dec. 22, 2013 A new study has found that species living together are not forced to evolve differently to avoid competing with each other, challenging a theory that has held since Darwin's Origin of Species.
Share This:
By focusing on ovenbirds, one of the most diverse bird families in the world, the Oxford University-led team conducted the most in-depth analysis yet of the processes causing species differences to evolve.
They found that although bird species occurring together were consistently more different than species living apart, this was simply an artefact of species being old by the time they meet. In fact, once variation in the age of species was accounted for, coexisting species were actually more similar than species evolving separately, opposite to Darwin's view which remains widely-held today.
I think you forgot to include this part of the story in your mined quote.

"It's not so much a case of Darwin being wrong, as there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages," said Dr Joe Tobias of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, who led the study. "But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species."

I am having a difficult time believing you were in antibiotic research, ever.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107831 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This might be worth considering if it were published in science publication.
Scroll down. It is peer reviewed.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107832 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think you forgot to include this part of the story in your mined quote.
"It's not so much a case of Darwin being wrong, as there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages," said Dr Joe Tobias of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, who led the study. "But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species."
I am having a difficult time believing you were in antibiotic research, ever.
You are right. My source for the article is and he does not slum it on Topix.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107833 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You are right. My source for the article is and he does not slum it on Topix.
I suppose I don't blame that scientist, very often you just meet anti-science liars, and fundamentalists that quote mine and provide misinformation.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107834 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Scroll down. It is peer reviewed.
That per review is as valid as 85 Lumber's mill certified plywood. The mill said it was good.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107835 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think you forgot to include this part of the story in your mined quote.
"It's not so much a case of Darwin being wrong, as there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages," said Dr Joe Tobias of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, who led the study. "But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species."
I am having a difficult time believing you were in antibiotic research, ever.
I highlighted the top few paragraphs and you say i mine quoted? What did you just do? Mine quoted a paragraph.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107836 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose I don't blame that scientist, very often you just meet anti-science liars, and fundamentalists that quote mine and provide misinformation.
Getting nasty? LOL. On the defensive? Anti science liars? When all else fails throw mud! Sort of like the ole saying, a bigot is anyone losing an argument to a liberal, mentality. Have a nice day Dan.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107837 Jan 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That per review is as valid as 85 Lumber's mill certified plywood. The mill said it was good.
Either way you missed it until i had to point it out to you. Even though it is referenced in the first sentence of the article. How stupid is that?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107838 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Either way you missed it until i had to point it out to you. Even though it is referenced in the first sentence of the article. How stupid is that?
It isn't stupid all that you would have to tell someone that a creationist publication is peer reviewed. It is a lie.

I didn't miss anything, I merely pointed out that lie. Rubber stamping pseudoscience is not peer review.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#107839 Jan 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Getting nasty? LOL. On the defensive? Anti science liars? When all else fails throw mud! Sort of like the ole saying, a bigot is anyone losing an argument to a liberal, mentality. Have a nice day Dan.
No, not nasty, just realistic. I am not throwing mud. I am stating my opinion of some of the sorts that you find on this forum and stating my agreement with why that person doesn't follow this forum. Though, more likely, he is completely unaware of the existence of it.

I will point out though, that you distinctly referred to being here as slumming and all that it implies. Hypocrisy is a characteristic of fundies that is almost universal. It seems you must have known you were failed before you had even gotten very far. You whole post is defensive and typical.

You have a nice day as well.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Thinking 13,138
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min ChristineM 30,947
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 150,887
Another "gap" gets closed 3 hr MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) May 17 Bkd 1,746
Clues to ancient giant asteroid found in Australia May 17 MIDutch 1
More from around the web