The misinterpretation of evolution

[Navvan]

Now I know you're just trolling.

Claiming that there's evidence for creationism isn't doing anything to prove you're not lying, if you don't even state what the nature of this evidence is.

Geography has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody can be that ignorant.

You're the one making the claim that Creationism is a valid idea. You need to provide the evidence that NOT ONLY is your version of Creationism the correct one, but evidence that ALSO DISPROVES *every other* Creation story AND evolution.

Until you do that, you're just a troll and a liar.

*Sigh* Well, if I literally have to DRAG this to you than so be it.

Here is a 20 minute video about what I believe as a Creationist. Even if you don't believe everything that is said I highly recommend that you watch the whole thing to get a grasp on the ignorance that we Creationist really have, and how we ignore honest facts on purpose just to piss off the evolutionists The first five minutes is just warm-up, and the intro guy is a little cheesy, so go ahead and skip that if it's a little bit too much.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/riddle/origin-of-life

You should also check out a 68 minute video by the same guy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/riddle/origin-of-humans

If you don't watch at least the first one then I really have nothing else to say to you, but you mine as well try to gain some insight into the extremely narrow/simple mind of Christians while one of us is giving you a preferred source.

I've listened to the first link and there are a lot of things blatantly wrong, and the rest is just misleading. I can see where it would be convincing to someone with little understanding of scientific theory or even someone who understands scientific theory but has not been trained in biology, chemistry and biochemistry. I have been trained in all these fields (Senior year of a bachelors in all 3) and I will refute all of his claims that I can recall. If I miss one that you think is particularly good, quote me back and I'll reply.

1. First he repeats after each point "There is only one conclusion, God Created...". Even if each of his arguments were valid, which they are not, to say that the conclusion is an untestable, unobservable, and fundamentally supernatural cause with no mechanism or explanatory power is unscientific. Here is one such argument that is exactly equivalent to "God Created" in terms of explanatory power and all the evidence he listed (assuming it were true). Life just existed. If that insults you than an equivalent statement would be the life seeding argument (comet/aliens/extraterrestial object) carried life to earth. Each are equivalent statements, and none of them are scientific. There is of course the more reasonable assumption, that we haven't figured it out yet. Which is actually true.

2. He is discussing Chemical Evolution, more commonly referred to Abiogenisis to prevent confusion with Biological Evolution, which is often call Evolution. While Chemical Evolution is evolution it is drastically different than the well accepted scientific theory of Biological evolution. Biological evolution (the one often sited as suggesting man evolved from apes) describes the origin of Species, not the origin of life. It makes the assumption that life already exists and is stable in some form. Chemical evolution is a hypothesis with some supporting evidence. That is about the equivalent of many hypothesis, and statistically speaking some of those equivalent hypothesis will turn out to be incorrect.

3. There is no scientific consensus on the origin of life to date. The only part of his argument that is agreed upon (although since none are definitive I will not say well accepted)is that life most likely started by probability and chance but models of how this happened vary drastically. He states "Amino acids are the building blocks of life". This is grossly misleading. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein, and life as it exists today. Early models of Chemical evolution used them as the "building block of life" but that is not inherently so. The currently most well accepted Chemical evolution hypothesis assumes an RNA world. A unique type of molecule (still around today in all living organisms and performing similar function)that can perform both the function of DNA and Protein (store information and catalyze reactions. Also proteins are unable to self replicate where RNA is. It is also fairly stable to hydrolysis, as are most proteins (what the amino acids would have had to form before doing anything "life like").

4. Oxygen Rich world is a gross exaggeration for 3.5 million years ago which it would have had to be for his "Oxygen destroys all life instantly" argument to hold solid ground. This is exiting my field of knowledge a bit, but I do know quoting nearly 30 year old textbook is a bad practice. New information and discoveries occur all the time and I can only assume more convincing evidence has been found that states contrary evidence to the one he cites. Even if this is not the case, he cherry picks an argument that says "100-1 billion times more oxygen in the atmosphere". Well if the assumption was 0 then clearly that means nothing. Of course he meant "Very small amount" however still taking the high end of the scale stating 1 billion times more doesn't really mean much either, as it was likely still a "very small amount". 1 Billion looks like a lot to most people, but in terms of molecules (O2 in this case) it is likely only just significant difference for a time frame so far back. This is also evidence by their scale from 100-1 billion.

5. Ozone is not the same as oxygen in terms of what we talk about. Both ozone and the oxygen molecule are allotropes of the oxygen element. Allotropes of an element can behave as differently as chiral molecules (left/right amino acids). To lump them together is blatantly wrong.

6. The idea that right hand amino acids are a "poison to life" is another gross exaggeration of a fact. It would not matter left or right which we have so long as we have one kind. Also this is explained in basic biochemistry courses. The fact that we do not "decay" into two kinds while living is attribute to metabolic pathways, specifically synthesis of amino acids and protein degradation. As previously mentioned the currently most accepted chemical evolution process invokes RNA and not amino acids so this point (and all amino acid points) are moot regardless.

7. The Miller experiment. Every textbook I've had that teaches the Miller experiment (that wasn't an extremely basic course) has stated its faults including and more so than what he has. That includes every one I've had since attending college, which was a Biochemistry course, cell biology, and evolution. Thus I'm inclined to disagree with him about our science classes "not teaching science". The miller experiment wasn't a failure, but it was not a "nail in the coffin experiment" by any means. It showed what he aimed for it to show. He wanted to show that it was possible for organic molecules to spontaneously develop from inorganic molecules in an old earth setting. He did. Experiments by themselves are very rarely definitive.

8. Again the idea that "God is clearly the answer from scientific evidence" is blatantly wrong. Nothing he says (even if it were true) points to god creating life. It would only point to that our current concepts of how life originated was wrong. The two are not the same. See God of the gaps. Science is based upon positive argument (reasons based on things found) not negative evidence (reasons base on things not found).

If you have any questions or rebuttals I would be happy to take it into consideration.

 

[Asita]

I apologise Asita I still havent gotten the hang of the quoting system or how to break it up into individual paragraphs so bare with me for now.

That's largely copy pasting. Press the quote button and you get the entire post and whatever's quoted within it. The start of the quote will read [ quote="author"...ending of course with another ] and then the text that's being quoted. Find the end of the part that you want to see quoted by typing [/quote] to end it and then write your response. paste the tags around any section of the post you wanted to quote. Alternatively: Quote the whole thing and then simply refer to whatever section you were addressing at a given point in the follow-up.

OK. I went as far back as families because genii & species can diverge from common ancestors via their combinations of alleles. But this is where it is limited as I have mentioned, a species will either just recycle the same combinations or hit a dead end such as the sterility or the physical inability of procreation (Imagine a chihuahua trying to knock up a rottwiler)

A) Hybridization is not the mechanism for evolution
B) The example you cite would actually makea better argument as an instance of speciation instead of against evolution, as we know Rottwilers and Chihuahuas have a common ancestor, have established their own viable independent populations and the inability to mate naturally is a criteria used to establish different species. Though personally I'd have gone with Great Danes or Mastiffs instead of Rottwilers just because those really make mating almost physically impossible (and a female chihuahua literally would not be able to handle the pregnancy).
C) You're completely neglecting the little detail of mutation causing genetic variation, instead focusing entirely on natural selection. This is like trying to disprove heavier-than-air flight by citing gravity and ignoring lift. Any given organism is born with mutations in their DNA. Most of these have little impact. A few have a positive impact on the organism's ability to survive and a few have a negative impact. Natural Selection culls the negative traits, while the positive and benign traits tend to accumulate. Over time this results in populations that can be very different than their ancestral strain.

This would also account for the Cecal valves in P. sicula you also mentioned. Since cecal valves are present in 1% of all known species of scaled reptiles according the original article http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/74409.php this may very well have been a recessive trait that was present heterozygous in the 'Ancestral strain'. Being isolated with an undigestible food source may have only allowed the homozygous P. sicula to store the nematode more efficiently in its gut.

If it was a homozygous trait as you are suggesting then it would be exhibited in the source population. Assuming that a trait needs to be homozygous to be expressed and both parents are carriers by virtue of being heterozygous for it, then 50% of their offspring could be expected to be heterozygous like their parents, 25% would be homozygous for the trait and thus express it, and 25% would lack it entirely. This does not mesh with your proposed explanation of the source population being heterozygous for it. The discovery's nature was so novel specifically because it was never exhibited in the ancestral population, which incidentally still exists on the island Pod Kopiste. In proper context, '1 percent of all known species' doesn't mean 'within every species 1% of the population has this trait'. It means '1% of the species have this trait'.

As for the citrate & nylon eating bacteria I read about this in a New scientist article & was incredibly dissapointed that it had made no mention of plasmids. http://askabiologist.asu.edu/plasmids Plasmids can splice & slice themselves in & out of the bacterias genome, copy them, & inject them in other bacteria with a tube called a pilus. This is how bacteria develop resistance or produce enzymes to break up new substances.

A) Plasmids are produced by bacteria
B) While I'm not familiar enough with the nylon-eating bacteria example to rule out Plasmids, I can say with some certainty that they do not provide a workable explanation for Lenski's E.Coli due to 1) The controlled nature of the experiment, 2) The manner in which they were able to reproduce the success in a portion of the cloned populations, noting that a key mutation occured somewhere around generation 31,000 to 31,500 with a rate that indicated it likely capitalized off of an earlier mutation, an 3) That's the kind of detail that gets noticed in peer review. That they didn't mention it in the non-technical public-article by a reporter doesn't mean that it wasn't accounted for in the experiment itself. The question you have to ask is whether you think it's more likely that the article just didn't mention the detail for one reason or another (lack of relevance, takes focus away from more important details...) or wheter you think that scientists specializing in microbial research would neglect a detail like that, and that all of their peers who'd review the paper would make the same mistake.

When I said that evolution is superficial being based on external traits I was referring mostly to homology not speciation & ERVs are more commonly called retrotransposons now & play vital roles in gene regulation http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n5/abs/ng.368.html & also contribute to extra variation but isnt necessarily a gain in new information but repeats in already present info.

If you want to go that route, then the classification system itself is superficial as it is primarily based on physical traits.

I believe you provided an example with the thompson & rutherford models as theories that must adapt or die. Further discoveries resulted in Bohrs model being the most accurate at the time & has adapted through further modification by quantum mechanics.

I'm aware. I chose the Rutherford model as an example because its deposition of the Plum Pudding model was something I thought would ring a bell with more people, given that it had a very simple experiment and a more extreme model shift than the Bohr model replacing the Rutherford model. So I have to wonder what your point is here especially considering that the example was used in the context of explaining why models shift.

I know enough about chemistry, organic & inorganic to state that abiogenesis is a chemical impossibilty. Living systems function by the utilisation yet seperation of conflicting chemical properties & formation. Infact living systems a machines that function at the atomic level, which is how they also replicate, & not something that can form in a test tube or pond under any conditions.

Well first of all, please stay on topic. Abiogenesis is distinct from evolutionary theory. Secondly, I hope you'll forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt, especially considering that organisms reproduce at the cellular level, not the atomic level the claim of which makes your claim of sufficient knowledge seem far less likely. No offense. Additionally, I'd point out that what you're arguing here is a fallacy known as 'argument from incredulity' and I sincerely doubt you have the expertise in the relevant fields to make that claim with any certainty.

I shall reword the statement I previously posted. My rejection of evolution isnt due to my Creationist faith, that came before hand.

Ok, I think we've still got some wording issues here, because I can read that going either way. Are you saying you were a creationist before you rejected evolution or you rejected evolution before you became a creationist?

Its just convenient that im a creationist & reject evolution.

Mmm, not really. It's actually very unsurprising considering that the former is defined in part by the latter.

Im tackling evolution on scientific grounds because I believe the models are flawed & claims not possible. But it is true that we cant truly know the past only go by what we interpret from evidence.

And the trouble with presenting data contradicting evolutionary models is that everyone shrugs them off thinking theres an explanation somehow. Nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation how an XY chromosomes suddenly become WZ chromosomes without any repercussions to the birds or insects.

Lack of knowledge is not contradictory. Lack of knowledge is simply indicative of something we could understand better. Let me give you an example: If I ask you where your parents were the evening of December 30, 1973 and you could not answer, would you consider that evidence that your parents didn't do anything that day or even maybe didn't exist that day? No, of course not. There is data out there that would answer your question, that you lack it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You could posit that they went to the ice ring. Does your lack of knowledge contradict that? No. If you found tickets for the Exorcist for that evening, that would contradict your claim about the ice ring. If you want to find a contradiction it is not enough to find something the opponent can't explain, you have to actually have data that is directly at odds with the claim you're trying to show as contradictory.

But heres a question, how does a gene come into existance? If there is a strand of DNA sitting the genome not affecting the phenotype then theoretically its free to mutations. This mutating strand can become nothing significant in all its existance but lets say hypothetically its destine to accumulate the right types of mutations that will give it the right length & base sequence for a functioning protein, an enzyme for example. If the strand is non-protein coding then theoretically is could scramble to become something functional but because its not being translated it can continue to mutate & the useful sequence will be lost. If at some point it does become translatable then why would it only happen in the period of the useful sequence? Because the other transitional sequences occupy the genome longer there is greater chance they will be translated should it occur producing junk proteins, especially in the organisms offbranching bloodline who inherit the transitional gene before hand. There is no evidence of this in any organism.

Stop right there. First of all, mutations are still part of the genome. They do not separate when they mutate, nor do they cause the strand as a whole to cease functioning. A mutation is a transcription error (via insertion, duplication, deletion or replacement) in the DNA (or RNA) replication process, the exact effects of which (benign, negative, positive) vary based on where and how the transcription error took place. If I'm reading you right, you are treating it as if mutations somehow don't count unless an incredible number of them become independent. By all appearances you take this misunderstanding and run with it in such a way that I can only wonder where you learned about genetics.

If the strand was translatable to begin with then there should be more junk proteins throughout divergient species. Naturally if the junk sequences are toxic natural selection will eliminate them. If they're all fatal then evolution doesnt happen, so only neutrals can progress. Again, there is no animal naturally riddled with junk sequences & this is what the preposed mechanism for evolution predicts.

Wow, again, riddled with misunderstanding. A significant portion of any given eukaryote's DNA is actually Junk DNA.

It is true that its easier to prove something exists than something doesnt exist so logical predictions are the best I can do you for at the moment.

Mmm, you can't prove a negative, but it is actually very easy to prove a given statement false if the data lines up with it. Case in point: There's an elephant in your room. Very easy to disprove. And the inverse: You're literate. Now obviously I can't prove that myself, but the very fact that you're posting and replying on a forum presents very strong evidence that you are in fact literate. Again, not difficult.

 

[evilneko]

And the trouble with presenting data contradicting evolutionary models is that everyone shrugs them off thinking theres an explanation somehow. Nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation how an XY chromosomes suddenly become WZ chromosomes without any repercussions to the birds or insects.

You don't know how it happened therefore god dunnit?

I am disappoint.

 

[BrassButtons]

Nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation how an XY chromosomes suddenly become WZ chromosomes without any repercussions to the birds or insects.

Depending on the work you've put into finding such evidence, this may not mean much. Let's say there is an explanation for this. How would you find it? Obviously scientists aren't going to say "wow, here's that evidence darkstarangel wanted, let's send it to him," so what steps have you taken/are you taking to ensure that you will be aware of such information if it comes to light? And once you have that information, what makes you think you will understand it?

Please note that none of these questions are meant to be insulting. These are genuine issues which, I've found, many people with views similar to yours tend to ignore.

 

[oktalist]

Take the Grand Canyon for example. Evolution says that it evolved over million of years

Scientists have not found the missing link between the Grand Canyon and monkeys, therefore evolution is wrong!!!!11111

Now I don't know exactly what the chances are of an organism like us being created, but it certainly seems like a slim chance to me that we'd turn out exactly like we did and even be able to have this argument.

Here in the UK the odds of winning the National Lottery are about 1 in 14 million. And yet sixteen people won the top prize last month (there are two draws per week). The odds of those sixteen tickets all being winners are astronomical, something like 1 in 2×10114. And yet it happened. And the fact that this so unlikely event happened does not surprise us, only because there were another 2×10114-1 equally unlikely events, none of which happened, and the odds of exactly one of them happening were very high.

The odds of throwing a double-6 with two 6-sided dice are 1 in 36. But if you throw the dice 36 times, the odds of getting a double-6 at least once are almost 3 to 1 the other way. Throw the dice 100 times and there is only a 6% chance that you won't see at least one double-6. Throw the dice an infinite number of times (theoretically, of course) and you get an infinite number of double-6s, just as you get an infinite number of every other combination of rolls.

With an infinite universe to play with, our appearance was actually inevitable, just as is the appearance of every other conceivable arrangement of matter. This is the anthropic principle. I hope I have explained it clearly enough.

An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters will one day type out an entire human genome. But by that time they will have evolved to the point where they can use Microsoft Word anyway.

where did the very first cell ever come from? because I, as a christian that believes in evolution, as my original post said, believe that the very first cell ever was created by god. Not put on earth by a giant hand from the sky or anything ridiculous like that.

The onus is on you to explain why God is less ridiculous than a giant sky hand.

And the odds of this God appearing are at least as unlikely as the odds of us appearing, are they not?

 

[Dasmaster]

This is actually a very "American problem" in that it does not really exist elsewhere (or is because of completely different reasons such as everyone is poor)

The main problems are as i remember the following.

1: The misrepresentation of evolution through media and other places. Example: "Evolution says that nothing created everything." or "The chance that animal x evolve into animal y is 1 against 10000 billion trillion."

2: A huge lack of insight from people. Example: "The scientific community is split" or blindly relying on untrustworthy sources again and again.

3: A lack of understanding either from learning an extremely simplified version or simply made it up all together. Example "How could the first animal find a mate of the opposite sex?" or "How could a fully functional eye suddenly appear?"

4: Different emotions keeping them from even listening such as anger or just plain irrational. Example: "Evolution is from the devil" and "The scientific community is conspiring against us."

The main cause for this is that allot of people spend allot of money to confuse facts and rile up people. Btw these are the exact same people that are against global warming and Muslim-phobia as well as the old supporters of the tobacco companies.

 

[Dinwatr]

Nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation how an XY chromosomes suddenly become WZ chromosomes without any repercussions to the birds or insects.

Essentials of Genetics, Fifth Edition, by Klug and Cummings. By the way, the mistake you're making is assuming that all genes are HOX genes. You can actually change a wide range of genes in fruit flies, with clear macroscopic morphological ramifications but without killing the fly--things like making the antenna turn into legs, or adding extra wings, and the like. They get into that in Essentials of Genetics, and I know a number of researchers who use these as proxies for mutation rates.

Secondly, to more accurately address the issue you raised: "ramifications" are what evolution is based on. A neutral mutation--say, a third codon replacement or the like--won't be selected for or against. Such mutations are the basis for molecular clocks. If the mutation is NOT neutral, it'll either be beneficial, detrimental, or a mixture of the two (the last option is the most common). The organism as a whole moves through fitness space as the population evolves, meaning that even beneficial mutations may be lost if other mutations are detrimental and kill off the organism. But if a trait is selected for it's certainly not without ramifications--the increase in the portion of the population with that gene, or even the fixation of that gene, are clear beneficial ramifications of one gene turning into another gene.

where did the very first cell ever come from?

It evolved from a protocell. There's really not a hard line between "alive" and "not alive"--it's a very finely graduated scale, and there's really no objective place to put the line between "living" and "non-living" even today (viruses and prions act alive, but many consider them to not be). In the Hadean, the transition was much more obvious.

 

[Ritter315]

Since I can quote correctly, I cant answer individual responces but as far as I can tell, the insanity on this board is amazing. Here I am, raising valid points not knocked off by evidence but by semantics. YES I know that evolution doesnt result in simply superior or inferior forms of life but the fact of the matter is: The bit on HUMAN evolution suggests an upward climb, which we have never seen. We've never seen a downward spiral in the world either, so I dont CARE if evolution is SUPPOSED to create superior lifeforms, my point still stands and has YET to be addressed.

Also, when an arguement begins like this: "Does anyone else here have a completed or partially completed degree in biology and want to shoot themselves anytime they hear something like this?" - How else can one believe other than many evolutionists are asshats? Its not a matter of many are (Because most arent) its just that most VOCAL ones DO act as if they are right from the get-go. Very arrogent and very hostile, generally speaking. Also, SAYING (or even having a degreee in biology) Doesnt mean you are automatically correct or that you automatically know more than someone without a degree. What it means is that you were formally educated in the topic, but rarely is it shown by simple arguements rather than simply avoiding the question.

 

[Asita]

YES I know that evolution doesnt result in simply superior or inferior forms of life but the fact of the matter is: The bit on HUMAN evolution suggests an upward climb, which we have never seen.

Not really. What you describe is just a predispositon to think ourselves a superior species when the truth of the matter is that such concepts have little value in the natural world. Upward trend, downward trend, those concepts are subjective and the only thing that matters is whether a species is well adapted or poorly adapted to a given environment. Outside of that, the concept of 'superior species' is pure hollywood.

Also, when an arguement begins like this: "Does anyone else here have a completed or partially completed degree in biology and want to shoot themselves anytime they hear something like this?" - How else can one believe other than many evolutionists are asshats?

To be blunt? That is easily turned around. The overwhelming majority of creationist arguments are based on misunderstanding of science and the very theory they're so eager to disprove, and almost all of them tie into a 'shoot first ask questions NEVER' mentality to the extent that they even say that things they should have learned in high school biology are 'inexplicable'. The sad part about the majority of these arguments is that they could have refuted them themselves if they'd made any attempt to find the answer instead of, in the height of intellectual laziness, declaring it impossible simply because they themselves don't know it. And we hear these things over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. With all this in mind it's not at all surprising that the general view of creationists tends to be...dismal and we're fairly well justified in having that perspective based on experience.


Incidentally: there's a button in the bottom right corner of a given post for quoting that post. If you want to do it manually, forum code always tends to use [/quote] at the end of the text you want to quote and

at the start of whatever you're quoting. To get the proper tag that makes the forum PM the person you're quoting though, you'd really have to use the button to get the specific starting bracket.

 

[Haratu]

People seem to still think that evolution is directed... it is not, it is freaky chance. A species does not adapt to an environment, it just happens to have the right characteristics for that environment.
If you get a lizard and plonk it in Antarctica its offspring do not adapt to the cold weather, they die. Even if you were to slowly decrease the temperature over generations, the lizard will still not adapt, the species will die when the temperature reaches a certain point. This is because a lizard, or any type of reptile, is incapable of being active in such low temperatures due to its body chemistry.
A penguin is a bird that evolved from a lizard, it was able to live in Antarctica becasue it was warm blooded. it did not evolve the warm blooded characteristic because of Antarctica, it evolved it while in prehistoric 'warm' Asia (where birds first evolved), then its ancestors travelled to Antarctica and they found they could live there.

This whole concept that the environment changed the creature is the largest and most fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. The creature was already changed and the environment just happened to be good for them so they thrived.

Whether a god or gods planned it for them is another matter entirely... but some people would say that 'random' chance is just them sorting things out and it just looks random for us. That is a different viewpoint on an issue that can not be disproven (or proven) and so is irrelevant in such a debate about evolution,.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

This is actually a very "American problem" in that it does not really exist elsewhere (or is because of completely different reasons such as everyone is poor)

The main problems are as i remember the following.

1: The misrepresentation of evolution through media and other places. Example: "Evolution says that nothing created everything." or "The chance that animal x evolve into animal y is 1 against 10000 billion trillion."

2: A huge lack of insight from people. Example: "The scientific community is split" or blindly relying on untrustworthy sources again and again.

3: A lack of understanding either from learning an extremely simplified version or simply made it up all together. Example "How could the first animal find a mate of the opposite sex?" or "How could a fully functional eye suddenly appear?"

4: Different emotions keeping them from even listening such as anger or just plain irrational. Example: "Evolution is from the devil" and "The scientific community is conspiring against us."

The main cause for this is that allot of people spend allot of money to confuse facts and rile up people. Btw these are the exact same people that are against global warming and Muslim-phobia as well as the old supporters of the tobacco companies.

You nailed it. It is just misconceptions and ignorance fed by the media and groups like the Discovery Institute. And religion can be another possible roadblock.

 

[Andy Szidon]

So, what's the misinterpretation? I just want the Opening Post to be more specific.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Yeah, and there's no reason we can't teach both Chemistry and Alchemy too, except the first is real and the second isn't... guess which one's older? That's right the wrong one. Creationism is a stupid mystic belief, not an "alternate theory" don't insult our intelligence by trying to push it as such. Your imaginary friend doesn't dictate reality, but our science does explain it. Get used to this fact because surprise, you're talking to someone on the other side of the planet and it was my science not your faith that made it possible.

I think you people need to watch more Futurama. Especially you.

 

[sexbutler]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Separation of Church and state? Maybe.

 

[oktalist]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

Sure you can, its just that the theory has held up so well. In fact, because no one has been able to disprove it shows that the theory is on very very very solid ground.

sigh... just Google "can science prove or disprove anything"

I did Google it, and happily, the second result was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability, which explains the scientific standpoint quite well, and even has a short section on evolution.

"Science can't disprove anything" = bollocks. Disproving things is the core tenet of science.

If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not science. That is to say, in order to be considered science, a theory must make some claim which could be refuted by observation if it were untrue. Things which cannot be disproven are not science.

If someone found a human fossil, and it was carbon-dated to before primates are thought to have evolved, that would disprove evolution. Therefore evolution is science.

If someone dropped a ball on Earth and it didn't fall at about 9.8 metres per second per second, that would disprove gravity. Therefore gravity is science.

The is no conceivable observation that anyone could make that could disprove any religious belief, creationism or intelligent design. Therefore they are not science.

This could not be easier to understand.

 

[General BrEeZy]

Evolution has some pretty blatant evidence to support it. and yet i dont see any way for it not to somehow coincide with my faith. the explanation is longer than i want it to be, so i'm not gonna state it, just know that i beileve evolution and it still makes perfect sense to me.

like someone said earlier: "I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism."

 

[Flac00]

-snip-

I don't get why you haven't factored religion into this equation. Creationism doesn't come from general "ignorance" or the "media." It comes from religion, and Christians mostly, and the Baptists tend to speak the loudest against it.

If both are taken out of context and used completely literally, creationism and evolution are opposing arguments. America is the home of the Bible belt, arguably the largest group of devout Christians who take the Bible completely literally. There's your explanation. This is not a new problem, and nor is either argument growing or receding at an abnormal rate. This creationism VS evolution thing has been going on since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. You're almost 200 years late for this party, I'm afraid.

Yeah, except now they are trying to teach Creationism as a science in school. Creationism is not a science, as you said, it is a religion. Those are not compatible.

 

[Flac00]

For a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!

Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....

Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.

This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.

If your going to link such things with many variations and different interpretations Wikipedia is not a valid source. I do know that Wikipedia is highly moderate but in such a topic things can be edited and are to controversial for the mods to intervene.

You can't actually edit the evolution page though. It is kept up and running only by the makers of Wikipedia. Because of that, I do believe the Wikipedia page for evolution is almost as reputable as any other online encyclopedia, however other pages are less so.

 

[limeyman]

At risk of sounding like a pussy, I feel as though the "Intelligent design" theory and the theory of evolution SHOULD be taught as theories with no bias on either side. I personally believe in science but I take the ground that says "Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and I won't mind so long as their OPINION doesn't affect anyone else.

What annoys me more than anything is when schools say "Hey, we were all created by god and he loves you. But there's also this theory saying we came from fish. Isn't that crazy? Now suck the dick of the lord." I'm paraphrasing but this sort of thing happened at my primary school and just made me dislike religion further.