Evolution vs. Creation

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

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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#107840 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.
have you been called a bigot a lot? why?

give me those arguments you gave that caused that and see what i think...as a verified conservative i will give you the control group you need.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107841 Jan 5, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked
http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493...
Pity that the active gene he cites as evidence is a pseudogene.

Funny how he does not mention that.

Meaning that whatever it does appears to be useless. So if a "functional" though useless gene or gene fragment got caught in the middle of the fusion event, so what?

Pseudogenes, of course, are just another facet of the genome that Design advocates have a hard time explaining.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107842 Jan 5, 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>
And that is clearly wrong.

Multi-drug therapy relies on the fact that resistance is a result of random mutation and that therefore, if the resistance to one drug is 1/x probability and to a second drug is 1/y probability, then the simultaneous resistance probability is 1/xy. However, if we administer x first and then y later, we are massively increasing the odds that the pathogen will develop resistance.

This is only true if the engine of change is random mutation, and the natural selection part speaks for itself. So what part exactly of this fundamental mechanism of change do you think is irrelevant?

So like I said, the discovery that some molds are poisonous to some bacteria does not rely on evolution, but the discovery that bacteria develop resistance and how best to combat that IS relevant and does rely on understanding how evolution works.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107843 Jan 5, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I highlighted the top few paragraphs and you say i mine quoted? What did you just do? Mine quoted a paragraph.
Quote mining is not a question of counting words, its a question of conveying the full conclusion and intent of the original author, rather than taking part of what he said and suggesting that his conclusion was something completely different.

You are free to partially quote and use that data to draw a different conclusion, so long as you make it clear that these are your conclusions and not the author's, and where relevant point out clearly that the author drew a different conclusion from your own.

You specifically ignored Tobias' statement to the contrary of the conclusions you drew from his earlier words.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107844 Jan 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, very interesting. I am unfamiliar with Morton. Thanks for posting this. I can understand why the fundies would be up in arms over this. The premise of your post fits with comments I just made to another poster.
Cheers. I hope you read the article. Morton has courage.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107845 Jan 5, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The immense point that all the advocates of Evolution keep annoying you with is that nobody is interested in arguments "by that premise". They've debated too many Creationists who use stupid tricks to hijack a debate and you're an example of one of them. We're all content to let you go round and round and round and round in your little bubble and be an example of pathetic, Creationist rationalization for the others who show up here.
Move on or keep on circling! It's all good!
Tell that to yourself. Evolution to date, is a garbage.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107846 Jan 5, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
OK, do you agree that English originated in England? if yes, it belongs to them by origin. Ok?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association (Jun '10) 9 min harlehoney 26,949
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 10 min Martina12 1,209
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min -TheExam- 159,845
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 29 min say it aint so 10,241
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 38 min Wolftracks 4,606
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 43 min Chilli J 9,599
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 58 min say it aint so 18,466
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr SLACK 39,975
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr harlehoney 17,989
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 hr John Boner 169
More from around the web