Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Jan 07

Location Shown

#107813 Jan 1, 2014
BTW

Happy new Year, Last year Evolved from The Day it was Created into This year, Hope i get more than a couple more with Mom in them,...


“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#107814 Jan 1, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, the latter. But the term "Evolutionist" suggests a philosophy or ideology that is based on Evolution science.
From WordWeb: evolutionist: a person who believes in organic evolution.
I'm not sure what term that scientists use to describe themselves, but I'm sure it has SOME Greek or Latin in it to make is sound special! Either way, I'm interested in the facts. The conclusions are not absolute.
Evolutionary biologist is a commonly used description or title.

One can maintain their personal ideologies and beliefs while accepting the facts of evolution. Much the same way that one can accept the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around without destroying ones primary beliefs.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#107815 Jan 1, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Replay, instead of continuing to fight this losing battle after making a claim you cannot support, why not try backing up a bit.
Accepting evolution does not have to mean abandoning God. Not that I believe in God, but some very smart people do. Highlights, by a publisher of 20+ Young Earth Creation geology papers who eventually realised YEC - that HE wrote many papers supporting, was a pack of lies:
" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."
-Glen R Morton
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm
You might find his whole article very interesting.
Morton made the transition from paid up paper writing Creation Geologist to realising that Creation geology was a pack of lies, gradually. He now accepts an old earth, the BBT, and evolution...but he is still a Christian too. Its not either / or, no matter what extremists at both ends of the spectrum say. But the evidence for the scientific position is overwhelming, and cannot be ignored but must be reconciled at least, as Morton has done.
Fundies, of course, hate his guts.
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.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#107817 Jan 2, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolutionary biologist is a commonly used description or title.
One can maintain their personal ideologies and beliefs while accepting the facts of evolution. Much the same way that one can accept the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around without destroying ones primary beliefs.
I tend to agree, but some religious leaders think it's important to raise the FUD level against Evolution. That's why I stick to a strictly diplomatic approach to the subject and will challenge any attempt to "apply" Evolution science to anything other than to help others.

That gets a bit fuzzy on some topics but when it comes down to defending Native Americans and chasing pedophiles off of the reservation, I'll choose the Native Americans and to hell with the pedophiles, even if they happen to be Congressmen or something....and don't think that this debate can't go ridiculous like that!

“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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#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.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min Lumajuice 158,207
Fancy staying in a unique Bubble Hotel? 7 min Brazen123 1
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 39,510
Incest relationships ever acceptable? (Apr '13) 1 hr george_m06 5
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 2 hr Camilla 2,335
Word Association (Jun '10) 2 hr whatimeisit 26,725
Its a SOCK WAR!!!! 2 hr Sock 1
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 4 hr whatimeisit 27,627
Rest in Peace, Spock 6 hr -Lea- 370
And your favorite Bree_Z sock is? 6 hr Bree_Z 23
More from around the web