Which do you consider real / better *...

Which do you consider real / better *natural science*?

Created by humble brother on Feb 9, 2014

2 votes

Click on an option to vote

Explained occurrences also observed

Explained occurrences only believed

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
humble brother

Finland

#1 Feb 9, 2014
Can science explain gravitation without any observations of occurrences of objects gravitating?

Can science explain evolution without any observations of populations evolving?
wow

Biloxi, MS

#2 Feb 9, 2014
humble brother wrote:
Can science explain gravitation without any observations of occurrences of objects gravitating?
Can science explain evolution without any observations of populations evolving?
This is a good question. Science is about true facts. Evolution may be on it's last legs because of real science. We know gravity is real and we can observe bodies in space rotating in a sequential way. All these objects in space seem to be moving and they could be creating their own gravity in conjunction with other objects, what do you think?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3 Feb 9, 2014
We have plenty of evidence of "populations evolving," both from evidence left behind in the past, and from real world observations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.h...

Creationist Claim CB910:

No new species have been observed.

Response:

1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

• A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

• Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

• A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

• Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more)(de Wet 1971).

2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

• Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
• The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
• Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed.(In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
• In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
• Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
• A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#4 Feb 9, 2014
Richard Lenski's real-time experiments with bacteria:

A New Step In Evolution
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#5 Feb 9, 2014
wow wrote:
<quoted text>Science is about true facts.
Redundant. A 'fact" is "true" by definition. Ever heard of a false fact?

And science is about the UNDERSTANDING of so-called "true facts."

These understandings or scientific theories, like the Theory of evolution, Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Theory of Special Relativity, etc. are what allow civilization to move forward as rapidly as it has.
wow wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution may be on it's last legs because of real science.
LOVE to see you document THAT opinion with links to real sources from the world of science (rather than Pastor Billy Bob's website).:)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6 Feb 9, 2014
humble brother wrote:
Can science explain gravitation without any observations of occurrences of objects gravitating?
Can science explain evolution without any observations of populations evolving?
Science can't even explain gravity with the help of observations.
Evolution is much easier to explain. It's all the consequence of medieval thinking.
everythingimportant.org/evolution
humble brother

Finland

#7 Feb 9, 2014
Shubee wrote:
Science can't even explain gravity with the help of observations.
Evolution is much easier to explain. It's all the consequence of medieval thinking.
everythingimportant.org/evolution
So in your view science is better of by looking for evidence of object fallen in the past by looking at stationary objects in the present?

Gravity should be modelled from craters on planets rather than the observed movement of the planets?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#8 Feb 9, 2014
Gillette wrote:
Richard Lenski's real-time experiments with bacteria:
A New Step In Evolution
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new...
A better title for this experiment would be "One More Confirmation of Devolution Theory."

Consider the article, Evolution of Penicillin-Binding Protein 2 Concentration and Cell Shape during a Long-Term Experiment with Escherichia coli, in the Journal of Bacteriology, 2009 February; 191(3): 909–921. The Abstract states: "In a long-term experiment, 12 populations of Escherichia coli having a common ancestor were allowed to evolve for more than 40,000 generations in a defined environment." The abstract specifies the "physiological trade-offs and ecological specialization during experimental evolution" and identifies them precisely. The trade-offs were that "both mutations that evolved were beneficial in the environment used for the long-term experiment and that … both mutations decreased cellular resistance to osmotic stress."
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution/
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Feb 9, 2014
Osmotic stress is bad.

Osmotic shock or osmotic stress is a sudden change in the solute concentration around a cell, causing a rapid change in the movement of water across its cell membrane. Under conditions of high concentrations of either salts, substrates or any solute in the supernatant, water is drawn out of the cells through osmosis. This also inhibits the transport of substrates and cofactors into the cell thus “shocking” the cell. Alternatively, at low concentrations of solutes, water enters the cell in large amounts, causing it to swell and either burst or undergo apoptosis.[1]

All organisms have mechanisms to respond to osmotic shock, with sensors and signal transduction networks providing information to the cell about the osmolarity of its surroundings;[2] these signals activate responses to deal with extreme conditions.[3] Although single-celled organisms are more vulnerable to osmotic shock, since they are directly exposed to their environment, cells in large animals such as mammals still suffer these stresses under some conditions.[4] Current research also suggests that osmotic stress in cells and tissues may significantly contribute to many human diseases.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_shock
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#10 Feb 9, 2014
So while devolution is clearly seen today, it's a fairly well-established yet well-hidden fact that there is no sign of evolution or devolution in the fossil record.

In a landmark 1972 paper—based on an extensive study of the fossil record—Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould established the now widely accepted conclusion that the great majority of species that have ever lived originated in geological moments (punctuations) and persisted unchanged over long periods of time (stasis). Since 1972, "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Feb 10, 2014
Oh joy. A Bumble Bro-Shoob love-fest. You fundies have fun with each other then.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#12 Feb 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Oh joy. A Bumble Bro-Shoob love-fest. You fundies have fun with each other then.
Why? Is your side getting the white flag ready?

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#13 Feb 10, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Is your side getting the white flag ready?
Something's gotta dry the tears of laughter.
humble brother

Finland

#14 Feb 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Oh joy. A Bumble Bro-Shoob love-fest. You fundies have fun with each other then.
I notice a severe lack of logical arguments in your posts.

What is your answer to the topic of this poll?
Let me guess, you're unable to answer a simple question.

Why do you think you are unable to answer simple rational questions and yet you are also unable to produce even one simple rational question I wouldn't be able to provide you with an answer?
humble brother

Finland

#15 Feb 10, 2014
Shubee wrote:
Science can't even explain gravity with the help of observations.
Evolution is much easier to explain. It's all the consequence of medieval thinking.
everythingimportant.org/evolution
humble brother wrote:
So in your view science is better of by looking for evidence of object fallen in the past by looking at stationary objects in the present?
Gravity should be modelled from craters on planets rather than the observed movement of the planets?
So again, no answer? We have another mute..
humble brother

Finland

#16 Feb 10, 2014
Shubee wrote:
Science can't even explain gravity with the help of observations.
Evolution is much easier to explain. It's all the consequence of medieval thinking.
everythingimportant.org/evolution
Your link didn't seem to work. Perhaps you were just being sarcastic with the expense of the evolution model. If that is the case I am sorry for not seeing it :)

I would like to hear the thoughts of these evolution-fundamentalists on the burning question of this poll :)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#17 Feb 10, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice a severe lack of logical arguments in your posts.
That's because you never learned logic.(shrug)
humble brother wrote:
What is your answer to the topic of this poll?
Let me guess, you're unable to answer a simple question.
Why do you think you are unable to answer simple rational questions and yet you are also unable to produce even one simple rational question I wouldn't be able to provide you with an answer?
You're lying, since you've been addressed multiple times on the other thread. Same as you have been for YEARS.

Keep dodging, Bumble.
humble brother

Finland

#18 Feb 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
That's because you never learned logic.(shrug)
<quoted text>
You're lying, since you've been addressed multiple times on the other thread. Same as you have been for YEARS.
Keep dodging, Bumble.
You haven't answered the question of this poll? Why is that?

Now you made a claim. I will now ask you to present your simple rational question that you claim I wouldn't be able to answer. So, what's your simple rational question?

It will not be a surprise if you can produce none. You got running mouth and empty hands again?:)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#19 Feb 10, 2014
humble brother wrote:
Your link didn't seem to work.
Thanks for the notification. I'm looking into it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#20 Feb 10, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link didn't seem to work. Perhaps you were just being sarcastic with the expense of the evolution model. If that is the case I am sorry for not seeing it :)
I would like to hear the thoughts of these evolution-fundamentalists on the burning question of this poll :)
don't bother..it is his personal site about his crazy proven false ideas...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web