""It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life..." that is wrong. perhaps the author was thinking about abiogenesis. the theory of evolution by natural selection(from now on i will refer to it simply as "evolution", for brevity) simply explains how life changes over time, not how life started on earth.
"I've also found out how peer-review journals are qualified; they have to be listed in Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports" What? Who wrote that rule?
Eugenie Scott is so calm and collected even with the way that they just hound on her like that. She's one of my favorite speakers for the subject for that reason.
@MirabiliaMania You assert that the all the examples on the speciation faq shows sub-species formation only? What would limit the change to a sub-species level?
I loved Scott's reaction of bewilderment at about the 2:30 mark at Dunbar's idiotic question which solicited a "say what" look from Scott. Yes, Eugenie, we share your bewilderment!
Dr. Eugenie Scott is my hero. I wish I had a fraction of her intelligence and eloquence. I also wish I had her patience. I would not have replied to those stupid questions so nicely.
Jesus is my hero! He lived a perfect sinless life so I could be forgiven for my sin and be reconciled to God! Eugenie Scott is helping lead you straight to Hell! What a hero!
“Surely the lack of gradualism-the lack of intermediates-is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.
I'm English and a former school teacher. I left the profession because it bothered me that I was sometimes forced to teach bullshit and have to put up with bullshit from kids, parents and my bosses who handed down the crap sent from Westminster. I still miss those kids who wanted to learn and the parents who wanted their kids to do as well as they could. I am glad, however, that I never taught in the US. The ignorance dripping from the questioner is incredible. She is clearly unaware, either willfully or accidentally, of what science is and she is there trying to influence the science education of hundreds of thousands of kids. That is utter madness in the guise of democracy.
Ho Hum I think you may have been more at home in a more liberal area of the US. The whole of the United States isn't as fringe and radically right-wing as Texas has been, and increases to be. In other words, Texas should not be the poster child for America as a whole. I prefer to think that we are better than the least of us, but you may disagree! ;-)
+Bigbadd Woofe from the UK we look at this and think WTF are yanks all stupid, then we remember you have places like MIT and Barkley and that your real (not Liberty) scientists don't believe that shit, in fact 99% of them don't give ID a second thought. Think the Templeton Institute did a survey of scientists who believed in ID and it was something like 0.15%, when the ID brigade say there are 457 scientists who dispute evolution the neglect to say that there are about 875,000 who don't!
Ho Hum Science isnt consensus my dear, and we Americans are not a democracy. We are a republic. In a republic We protect fools like this women to continue to believe in foolishness.
@1974jrod That's the most idiotic thing I've read this week. America is a democratic republic. You can't even grasp that much and yet you call Dr Scott a fool. In a democracy the people vote and elect their leaders. A republic is a nation that is not a monarchy. Grow a brain. Then again, you have King Donald now so I guess you're neither a republic nor a democracy anymore.
How about this version? Do you know it? PART 1 OF 2 G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
what matters is that some students are being taught mythology in place of truth as the rest of the country is. this mythology will put these areas at a disadvantage in the real world
I agree. There is no place for evolution in the public schools. How a hypothesis has become referred to as science is to make the scientific method a farce.
"All the animals migrated from the Ark landing site." that's exactly what i said. imagine the koalas, ants, termites, frogs and sloths walking/swimming back home, while at the same time avoiding predators. must be amazingly hardy termites and ants to swim all the way to the amazon. i searched again and the only website that appears to carry salt water platypus article is a religious website. do you have a scientific website where i can find it?
I've watched a lot of clips with her, and I think this is the closest I've seen to her getting pissed off with someone who asked a question, but is decidedly NOT understanding the answer.
This is like watching some kind of bizarre alternative reality, do these people really want to live in a theocracy where religious nonentities decide what should be tought in schools?
Krister Andersson Well, then don't make up stories and teach them as science. Start at the beginning of evolution and see how much evidence there is for it - and not microevolution which is nothing but adaptation and which we all understand and observe. We all know a wolf can microevolve to a dog, but give me the evidence that a wolf evolved to a whale, please. Not stories. Empirical evidence.
Kristen Michelle Why don't you go study evolution. There is no reason for a critical thinking person who is well informed on the subject to question that validity of evolution. You are approaching evolution with preconceived notions. That is not science.
Kristen Michelle I cannot since I am not a scientist, however I can tell you this: In 1928 Fleming discovered penicillin and it worked perfectly against various bacteria, now we have bacteria that are immune to penicillin, that is evolution and no it is not adaption. Furthermore evolution is not made up, what would be the purpose? I do not Think that you are receptive to reason so go ahead and lick your bible and spout fairytales.
@CarnivorousBiped My bad. I pressed the go button before I realized the Dembski math argument was backwards but I hope you get the actual logic behind it without further explanation.
"Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about....I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem." -ARBER, W. 1992. The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution. In Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 141-143. Yes, Eugenie, that's "too complicated" for atheists to understand LOL. Well, it's not too complicated for HONEST people who want to know the TRUE state of origin-of-life science.
So your argument is; I don't understand it, therefor God did it? That's kinda the definition of "Argument from Ignorance". I would expect more form a biologist. In school did you stop whenever you ran up against a tough problem in algebra and write down the answer, "I cannot solve the problem, therefor God is the answer." if so, how did that work for you?
Ed Reynolds Anything other than a quoting something that is more than 20 years out of date, have you anything else? Also, what is wrong with the answer "I don't know"?
Ed Reynolds Newton (arguably the most brilliant mind ever) after finding the laws of gravity between objects in space could not confirm his calculus equations to apply to multiple objects on an a plane of acreation and attributed it to God.......................80s later French physics profession Laplace took Newtons equations and extended them to find how they dictate bodies in motion with a gravitational plane and the idea of a God or angels controlling that was discarded and never assumed again.....So what was that you are stating from a biologist who didn't understand how life started?
"So what bit of this requires God?" The bit where all of the little pieces were precisely assembled together - in these cartoons, it's done by an intelligent designer. Who did it originally?
@MirabiliaMania But there is a huge list of observations in the literature, they are even documented in the species FAQ. Are you asserting they are all falsified?
Eugenie Scott is systematic in her obfuscation. She claims that Werner Arber's scientific conclusions in support of ID cannot be discussed in high school because the science is too complex, yet he wrote many easily understandable summaries and readable outlines of the thrust of his research and findings. It is not the complexity of his science that she objects to being taught, but rather that a Nobel Laureat has the affrontary to declare his belief in God, and that this belief is justified by his science. She readily admits that there is no problem with Dr Arbel's research, and she would be foolish to go there. Instead she invokes protection of simple minds that could not understand the science. What? On this basis no science should be taught in high school!
ALL of your post is BS. First of all, Genie Scott does not "obfuscate." You misrepresent her statement and her intent regarding Werner Arber. You also misrepresent what Scott clearly objected to, and - instead - engaged in a somewhat strawman argument assigning positions to her she does not hold. You are a typical religious zealot propagandist. Take your myths back to the dungeons of your church and stay there.
10 to the 164 power! The probability of a SINGLE PROTEIN to ensemble by chance!!! And you don´t believe in a creator?!! looooolll so many ignorant people in this world!!!
Mostly amongst those who adopt the "god musta dunnit" solution to every mystery. Watch this scientific space. Religion has demonstrated nothing other than the promotion of ignorant superstition to keep the masses cowed in their subordinate places.
It seems to me that i have more knowledge of science in one finger that you in your all body! So your argument is: that because some humans used religion to subordinate others or to justify anything, that is proof that a creator does not existe?! LOOL AHAHAHAH Tell me what you think of the SCIENTIFIC theory that says the entire universe works like a giant brain? Or that are infinite parallel universes with infinite versions of "you", or that when you die some particles of your body carrying memory leave you and probably enter other dimensions (life after death?!)? LOOOL you know nothing about science and less about arguments. But you know how to follow the trend without questions!!! And that´s enough for coward man or blind trendy ignorants, right? God bless you.
Frederico Silva When you have synthesised and tested 10 to the 164 power amino acid sequences and tested them to see how many are close, equal to or better than the one that nature has come up with, come back and report your results. Then calculate the probably of their being a god who could be so clever as to "create" life. That way we can compare the probabilities and see which is more likely.
@@fredericosilva3640 Check your definition of the word 'Theory'. Is Merriam-Webster's good enough for you? :- "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject." That's science; it's not forcing unproven ideas down anybody's throat. The Holy Bible fits in there quite nicely, too.....
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.
This is the first I've actually seen of Eugenie Scott in action. I'm reasonably impressed, she handled the situation pretty well. I would have expanded a wee bit upon the string theory analogy. This constant hammering on the suggestion that it's evidence of conspiracy to not teach high school students high level scientific concepts needed to be responded to more firmly. Not that the moderator seemed to be doing any work at all aside from occasionally saying "you've answered the question".
If it's present, contamination can quite easily make dates obtained by radiometric means null and void. I never made a claim that no conditions could keep contamination from happening, just that the conditions in question weren't likely to. I also never claimed that all the samples you cite were contaminated, I instead cited 14c being available from decay of heavier elements. YOU apparently can't read.
actually i have problems trying to get a straight answer from you. if you re-read the question, you'll notice it was rather simple: since you dont trust nas or berkeley or cern as scientific sources, which scientific sources DO you trust?
I "Googled" the 2nd one, "Is Life Unique" and while I didn't read the paper, I did read THIS: "More bad science in the literature by PS Myers" It totally lambastes Abel's paper and also points out that the peer-reviewed publication that published it has pulled it from its website. I've also found out how peer-review journals are qualified; they have to be listed in Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports. This makes about as much sense as our previous "discussion" on human population growth
@MaximusArurealius I shouldn't have to tell you that Newtonian gravity was replaced with General relativity or that Pastur's work has been vastly improved upon or that we have more accurate measurements for the circumference of the earth than Eratosthenes. Everyone who's been to school knows that.
"His alchemy cannot be seen solely in connection with his chemical experiments but was also a link between his religious beliefs and his scientific aims”. Karin Figala, “Newton’s Alchemy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton, ed. I. Bernard Cohen and George Edwin Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 375. Many of his experimental studies used esoteric language and vague terminology more typically associated with alchemy and occultism.
"What is the Alchemy that Isaac Newton practised/Believed?" did you not read my previous post? i will copy-paste for your benefit, but next time please read more carefully, it's right there on the FIRST sentence: "newton also believed in alchemy(literally that lead could be magically transformed into gold)" nobody is denying he was a genious or belittling his many contributions. my point is that just because he believed in something doesnt make it so(alchemy and christianty, for example).
You'll go far telling others who disagree with you that they are ignorant and don't know anything. "i only want all aspects of Evolution taught. " And what aspects of evolution do you think are not taught in science classes?
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.
@MaximusArurealius Exactly. Darwin is pretty much irrelvent in evolutionary theory these days. That's why we call it Evolution and not "Darwinism". Just the same way that we don't refer to Eratosthenes calculations when we say the world is spherical. Erastosthenes wasn't totally wrong, if memory serves he was 70 miles out, but science has moved on from then. Same with Darwin, same with Newton, same with Pasteur.
@Korona41 "But maco & microevolution in biology should be mentioned." Both are mentioned: one is gene/allele frequency mutation and the other is speciation. The only mechanism that differs is time. Aber's work (from the 70's if I'm not mistaken) raises no difficult task for molecular biology nor modern evolutionary synthesis theory. Arber's work is being used here by Dunbar as a false Trojan horse since his work has nothing to say about abiogenesis and makes no comment on such.
??? the school board can't discuss Pedagogy?? "the art or science of being a teacher" isn't for the school board to discuss?? What is wrong with our country!!!!
i asked for yoru own words, what do YOU think the theory of evolution says? that definition you found seems to be for abiogenesis(which btw is not a theory, but a hypothesis), not evolution. abiogenesis is about origins of life. evolution doesnt care about the origins of life, only about how life changes.
"I don't think we're for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." -James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule)
@MirabiliaMania Yes, there are lots of new species created, the species FAQ gives them with the references in the literature. Do you really believe all of those papers noting speciation are all falsified? The modern theory of evolution includes adaptation within a species but it is not limited to just that.
cont.... The whole issue was about asking students to use skepticism and keep an open mind when studying theories. As science itself is built on the premise of skepticism, and rightfully so. In fact according to the recent published data, the same modern synthesis which Scott has defended for so many years, has apparently "crumbled beyond repair" And this fact has been made explicit. And this is coming from (not just ID scientist, but) from non ID scientist as well.
Empty reply using the fallacious tactics. -Ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument. -Poisoning the well - a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says -Abusive fallacy - a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
Eternal life has already began for me. My physical body will phase out then I'll transition into a new imperishable body forever. It will be seemless. Christians arent sitting around waiting to be rescued. We are busy working together, building our churches, feeding hungry, active in the community, teaching others about the gift of eternal life and enjoying our families & friends. We love life. It's all we'll ever know.
actually sequitur. the theory of evolution by natural selection(what biologists mean when they say "evolution") started with darwin. newton was long dead before darwin was even born. thus newton cannot have an opinion about it. also can you tell me, in your own words, what you think the theory of evolution by natural selection says?
i'm asking you, in your own words, what do you think the theory of evolution(what modern biologists mean when they say "evolution") means? i suspect a wrong definition might be at the source of your opposition. so here's my(extremely short) definition 1)life reproduces 2) offspring inherit traits from their parents and their own particular mutations. 3) those individuals better adapted to their environment have a higher chance to survive long enough to reproduce, and thus(continues)
@pbaylis1 I have a question for you as from your answers it's not entirely discernable. You're a creationist? If so, what kind of creationist? Young earth, old earth, flat earth... I'm sure there are a host more but I can't think of them off the top of my brain. Further, if you ARE a creationist, what lead you to this conclusion? How do you justify your position? Is it a bibilically based position? Which passages from the bible justify your position? If you're NOT a creationist, move along.
Though Newton lived before Darwin, Newton was not unacquainted with the atheistic evolutionary theory on origins. He was convinced against it and wrote: "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing." Newton HIS WORDS ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT A CREATOR. DUH
just a short excerpt from wikipedia: "Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] "
I can't help noticing that all you sources seem to be at least 50 years old or so obscure that you often can't find the authors in an encyclopedia... Why so you suppose that is?
OK, let's explain this one. One of the antibiotics to which the strains in question were found to be resistant was clindamycin. Clindamycin has been classically linked to resistant clostridium strains and the strains in question were indeed clostridium. This should come as no surprise. In addition, the individuals in question died from lead poisoning and heavy metals contamination has been linked to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Done. Have a nice day.
i wonder what part of my post you were unable to understand. i'll try simpler words. what scientists mean by "the theory of evolution"(the one modern day biologists use) started with darwin. newton was long dead before darwin was even born. that means newton had no opinion about what modern day scientists mean when they say "the theory of evolution" hopefully that clears that up.
"Conflating ideas doesn't make your case appear any stronger." Not having an understanding of the definition of "evolution" or the word "metaphysics" makes your statement pointless.
@types10000 Whose philosophy? Oh, so the justice system isn't based on the big principle of philosophy, "you must back up your claims, either with some form of credible evidence or sound logic"? Also, it is in fact possible for one to prove a negative (albeit, most instances where one would do this would be in the process of also proving a positive contradicting that negative).
@Korona41 "Cynthia Dunbar is a force to be reckoned with!" Unfortunately for Cynthia, Arber's work (that Cynthia is directly talking about) deals with the abiogenic processes and NOT the evolutionary processes. A simple trip to your local wiki will avail one of so much knowledge it truly astounds. Scott's right. Arber's work is highly detailed and quite complex and has no place within a high school classroom. Basics are what is required. Learn to walk then run.
You can just hear in Cynthia's voice toward the end, she's thinking... I GOT HER! They're teaching ideology! She sounds so self-assured as if she led Dr. Scott down a rabbit hole and Dr. Scott fell right in. When really, Cynthia demonstrated quite clearly how ill informed her side of the debate is about science. Yes, we want to teach the viewpoint of the scientific community... it's a consensus based on empirical evidence. That's what science is.
Students are not taught "strengths and weaknesses" in the class. They are taught the facts. i think you misunderstand what this was about. This whole court hearing is to add those words to the phrasing of the mission statement for the school districts. Thus opening the door for creationists to jam in anything they consider a weakness...for example: religious beliefs.
"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959), was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] can't be explained in terms of micro-evolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters can't be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p86
In all the other clips from this hearing, all the other board members address Dr. Scott taking into account her PhD. Only Cynthia Dunbar addresses Dr. Scott as MS. Scott, a very slay and not to subtle "dig." Dunbar is truly destable.
You didn't answer the questions: 1 Did the very accurate instruments AMS detect radiocarbon? 2 Did Schweitzer find soft pliable blood vessels, and blood components and collagen in the T-Rex Bone that was cut open? 3 Are there other examples of soft tissue in fossils? 4 How quickly does biological tissue decay in lab testing? 5 How does the half-life of mtDNA at 521 years and 2 to 4 times less for DNA confirm quick decay, young fossils/Earth, and falsification of Deep Time/Evolution?
Based on your claim we would have never made it to the 17th century. The average birth among a married women would have been closer to 5-6. The life expectancy in 17th century was lower, & yes many babies died during this period, but this was because hygiene was not a big concern among many Europeans and Americans of European descent. In other areas of the world were civilizations & culture had already thrived for many thousands of years, the virtuous of keeping your body clean were well known.
PART 1 OF 2 G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
The Creationist Christian, Isaac Newton’s discoveries/contributions/studies include: classical mechanics, optics, infinitesimal calculus & calculus, laws of motion, universal gravitation, planetary motion, heliocentric model of the cosmos, built the 1st practical reflecting telescope, theory of colour from prism showing visible spectrum, empirical law of cooling, speed of sound, power series, binomial theorem to non-integer exponents, and Newton's method approximating the roots of a function.
ok i'll play along. lets assume that what modern biologists call evolution is some sort of fable. could you kindly tell me, in your own words, what you think this table says?(not sure how many times i've asked already but you seem to go out of your way to avoid telling me what you think it says)
@vryc I could use those same appeals re your own belief system, particularly appeal to authority. I'm interested in seeing how honest you are, regardless of whether total proof exists. Honesty that comes from: a) knowing your own, and science's, limitations (remember the doggie?) and b) that can say, at least, "I honestly don't know, but if this is of God, then I may have to change my belief system", not reaching for the first out clause you can lay your hands on. Do you think you have that?
These are just three of many more I can also cite........ D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47-65 (2009). David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012). Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
Some years ago, "Time" magazine did a study of scientists in the US regarding their religiosity and, if memory serves me correctly, something 88% of those scientists polled were either Atheist or Agnostic. Indeed, Thomas Edison, though dead, clearly falls into this category and if you don't believe me, look up his speech that he made when he participated in the building of a memorial to Thomas Paine; Edison turned the first ceremonial shovel.
@MaximusArurealius Really? Potholer cites his sources. Perhaps you should read them and then you can make a video telling us how you know better than professional scientists.
@MaximusArurealius So you don't know what ring species are. When you find a large geographical feature say, a mountain range, we find that animals adapt to form new species as they spread down either side of the range. all the species of a certain animal can breed with their immediate neighbours down one side of the range. And all of the species of the same animal can breed with their imediate neighbours down the otherside. When the two sides meet though the species cannot breed with each other.
heloizyjhenifer, It's precisely the same problem that religious people have with happy people who belong to other religions or having no religion at all. They're angry and call the other person's beliefs false. This isn't necessarily so terrible unless it has to manifest itself against facts like evolution and that the law says their children must learn it (but really don't have to accept it).
@MirabiliaMania We haven't? One example of directly observed evolution is a Flavobacterium (nylonase) that evolved to eat nylon, a man-made product. Good job getting upvotes from a few people that unfortunately did not know that, though.
Couple of questions....what is "more complex....a grain of rice or a human being? Please explain how you determine what organisms are "more complex" and which are "less complex." What is "more complex"...a cat or a dog?....a frog or a horse? Oh yeah...have fun turning yourself into knots answering these and justifying your answers. (For the record...the rice genome has more genes than the human genome. Does that mean rice is "more complex"). What standard are you using?
He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.
@MaximusArurealius You might want to read the rest of the stanley quote. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39. Nice quote mining attempt. It's taken me what? 20 minutes to disprove by looking for the original text
The point being that you have no eyewitnesses. You also have to realize that physical evidence is considered much more reliable than eye-witness testimony. This has been the case for many decades in courts of law and has ALWAYS been the case in science.
none of those seems to be a definition of evolution, i will answer any questions AFTER you tell me what you think evolution says. it's important to define terms as to avoid confusion.
@MaximusArurealius I would suggest that someone who had to be told what punctuated equilibrium is and thought it was a criticism of evolution isn't in position to assess the validity of Evolution. Also only creationists use the terms micro and macro evolution; macro evolution is just the accumilation of micro evolutionay change. You realise that phylogenetics is used in court?
that didnt answer the question, that was dancing around the bush and throwing red herrings. so i ask you again. what exactly, in your own words, do you think the theory of evolution says?(please notice i'm not asking why you think it's wrong. i'm asking what you think it says)
@MaximusArurealius Abiogenesis and evolution are linked, but the are "not the same". Try rereading my original comment. I said: "I wish I got penny everytime a creationist confuses abiogenesis with evolution." Abiogenesis is concerned with how animate matter derived from inanimate matter. How life got started from non-life. Evolution then explains how life diversified. They are linked because they are both concerned with 'life', but they are NOT the same.
it IS relevant what it says, how can you oppose what something says if you dont even know what it says? that's making a decision with no information. you seem to be stating reasons why you dont like it("it has no base on biology, etc) that's not what i asked i suggest you read the question carefully so that you can answer it: "what exactly, in your own words, do you think the theory of evolution says?(please notice i'm not asking why you think it's wrong. i'm asking what you think it says)"
There are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 combinations of a standard deck of playing cards after a shuffle. So, shuffle a deck and lay the cards out; the odds of laying out the cards in the order that you did is obviously incredibly small but the fact remains you did do it even if the odds HERE (not "hear" as you spelled it) are infinitesimal; these are REAL statistics.
"the salt water platypus" i searched but all i got was a religious website, so far i havent found any scientific sources that mention any salt water platypus, could you kindly mention a few scientific sources where i can verify? thanks those few animals in the tiny ark had to be remarkably hardy to make the incredibly long voyage to their native lands. imagine the koalas,ants,frogs and sloths walking/swimming back home, while at the same time avoiding predators. and pandas carrying bamboo.
Cynthia Dunbar's questioning style is quite reminiscent of that employed by Fox News - you get the impression she is trying to corner Eugenie Scott into saying something that can be twisted and used against her.
stefhenhaires-- 01. That said, then you've missed a lot of the points both of this video and of the other posters. I have never experienced anything supernatural; I personally cannot accept the idea of there being anything supernatural. If people want to show me either a repeatable supernatural occurrence or show me a peer-reviewed paper on such things, that's fine, until that happens I maintain there is nothing supernatural.
again that definition seems to be about abiogenesis, not evolution. i think we're getting closer to the source of your confusion. you seem to be conflating hypothesis like abiogenesis with the theory of evolution and mixing it up with a literal interpretation of the jew creation myth. since you seem to like wikipedia, how about reading the wikipedia article on evolution?
""It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life..." that is wrong. perhaps the author was thinking about abiogenesis.
the theory of evolution by natural selection(from now on i will refer to it simply as "evolution", for brevity) simply explains how life changes over time, not how life started on earth.
"I've also found out how peer-review journals are qualified; they have to be listed in Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports"
What? Who wrote that rule?
Eugenie Scott is so calm and collected even with the way that they just hound on her like that. She's one of my favorite speakers for the subject for that reason.
@MirabiliaMania You assert that the all the examples on the speciation faq shows sub-species formation only?
What would limit the change to a sub-species level?
I loved Scott's reaction of bewilderment at about the 2:30 mark at Dunbar's idiotic question which solicited a "say what" look from Scott. Yes, Eugenie, we share your bewilderment!
Pete Mangum to eah, you all are blind sheep, creeping towards a great and sudden "deer in headlights moment that will be coming upon you soon.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME Now soon? "Jesus-is-coming-back" soon? Your comment was posted a year ago, did the moment already pass?
@@plunderpunk2 4 years now and still no Jesus
Would you consider a multi cellular organism to be "more complex" than a single cell organism?
Dr. Eugenie Scott is my hero. I wish I had a fraction of her intelligence and eloquence. I also wish I had her patience. I would not have replied to those stupid questions so nicely.
Jesus is my hero! He lived a perfect sinless life so I could be forgiven for my sin and be reconciled to God! Eugenie Scott is helping lead you straight to Hell! What a hero!
“Surely the lack of gradualism-the lack of intermediates-is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.
I'm English and a former school teacher. I left the profession because it bothered me that I was sometimes forced to teach bullshit and have to put up with bullshit from kids, parents and my bosses who handed down the crap sent from Westminster. I still miss those kids who wanted to learn and the parents who wanted their kids to do as well as they could.
I am glad, however, that I never taught in the US. The ignorance dripping from the questioner is incredible. She is clearly unaware, either willfully or accidentally, of what science is and she is there trying to influence the science education of hundreds of thousands of kids. That is utter madness in the guise of democracy.
Ho Hum I think you may have been more at home in a more liberal area of the US. The whole of the United States isn't as fringe and radically right-wing as Texas has been, and increases to be. In other words, Texas should not be the poster child for America as a whole. I prefer to think that we are better than the least of us, but you may disagree! ;-)
+Bigbadd Woofe from the UK we look at this and think WTF are yanks all stupid, then we remember you have places like MIT and Barkley and that your real (not Liberty) scientists don't believe that shit, in fact 99% of them don't give ID a second thought. Think the Templeton Institute did a survey of scientists who believed in ID and it was something like 0.15%, when the ID brigade say there are 457 scientists who dispute evolution the neglect to say that there are about 875,000 who don't!
Ho Hum Science isnt consensus my dear, and we Americans are not a democracy. We are a republic. In a republic We protect fools like this women to continue to believe in foolishness.
@1974jrod That's the most idiotic thing I've read this week. America is a democratic republic. You can't even grasp that much and yet you call Dr Scott a fool. In a democracy the people vote and elect their leaders. A republic is a nation that is not a monarchy. Grow a brain.
Then again, you have King Donald now so I guess you're neither a republic nor a democracy anymore.
How about this version? Do you know it?
PART 1 OF 2
G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
what matters is that some students are being taught mythology in place of truth as the rest of the country is. this mythology will put these areas at a disadvantage in the real world
I agree. There is no place for evolution in the public schools. How a hypothesis has become referred to as science is to make the scientific method a farce.
+texas lajaw Evolution is practical and useful. Creationism isn't useful for anything.
joses box
Evolution answers nothing. Evolution is religion. Nothing more.
+texas lajaw You use it once a year.
+texas lajaw
fucking nonsense
E-PLURIBUS-UNUM
I'm curious, how do explain ring species?
she would probably view it as somewhat ironic but eugenie scott has the patience of a saint
"All the animals migrated from the Ark landing site." that's exactly what i said.
imagine the koalas, ants, termites, frogs and sloths walking/swimming back home, while at the same time avoiding predators. must be amazingly hardy termites and ants to swim all the way to the amazon.
i searched again and the only website that appears to carry salt water platypus article is a religious website.
do you have a scientific website where i can find it?
Half the planet would be devoid of animals due to them being predated on before they even got to where they were going.
I
evolutionists love liars.
I've watched a lot of clips with her, and I think this is the closest I've seen to her getting pissed off with someone who asked a question, but is decidedly NOT understanding the answer.
This is like watching some kind of bizarre alternative reality, do these people really want to live in a theocracy where religious nonentities decide what should be tought in schools?
Krister Andersson Well, then don't make up stories and teach them as science. Start at the beginning of evolution and see how much evidence there is for it - and not microevolution which is nothing but adaptation and which we all understand and observe. We all know a wolf can microevolve to a dog, but give me the evidence that a wolf evolved to a whale, please. Not stories. Empirical evidence.
Krister Andersson Yes, they do.
Kristen Michelle Why don't you go study evolution. There is no reason for a critical thinking person who is well informed on the subject to question that validity of evolution. You are approaching evolution with preconceived notions. That is not science.
Kristen Michelle I cannot since I am not a scientist, however I can tell you this: In 1928 Fleming discovered penicillin and it worked perfectly against various bacteria, now we have bacteria that are immune to penicillin, that is evolution and no it is not adaption. Furthermore evolution is not made up, what would be the purpose? I do not Think that you are receptive to reason so go ahead and lick your bible and spout fairytales.
Krister Andersson keep your religion St home
@CarnivorousBiped My bad. I pressed the go button before I realized the Dembski math argument was backwards but I hope you get the actual logic behind it without further explanation.
"Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about....I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem."
-ARBER, W. 1992. The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution. In Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 141-143.
Yes, Eugenie, that's "too complicated" for atheists to understand
LOL.
Well, it's not too complicated for HONEST people who want to know the TRUE state of origin-of-life science.
So your argument is; I don't understand it, therefor God did it? That's kinda the definition of "Argument from Ignorance". I would expect more form a biologist. In school did you stop whenever you ran up against a tough problem in algebra and write down the answer, "I cannot solve the problem, therefor God is the answer." if so, how did that work for you?
Ed Reynolds Anything other than a quoting something that is more than 20 years out of date, have you anything else?
Also, what is wrong with the answer "I don't know"?
Ed Reynolds Newton (arguably the most brilliant mind ever) after finding the laws of gravity between objects in space could not confirm his calculus equations to apply to multiple objects on an a plane of acreation and attributed it to God.......................80s later French physics profession Laplace took Newtons equations and extended them to find how they dictate bodies in motion with a gravitational plane and the idea of a God or angels controlling that was discarded and never assumed again.....So what was that you are stating from a biologist who didn't understand how life started?
"So what bit of this requires God?"
The bit where all of the little pieces were precisely assembled together - in these cartoons, it's done by an intelligent designer.
Who did it originally?
Ed Reynolds
"Who did it originally?"
You mean what did it originally?"
@MirabiliaMania But there is a huge list of observations in the literature, they are even documented in the species FAQ. Are you asserting they are all falsified?
Eugenie Scott is systematic in her obfuscation. She claims that Werner Arber's scientific conclusions in support of ID cannot be discussed in high school because the science is too complex, yet he wrote many easily understandable summaries and readable outlines of the thrust of his research and findings. It is not the complexity of his science that she objects to being taught, but rather that a Nobel Laureat has the affrontary to declare his belief in God, and that this belief is justified by his science.
She readily admits that there is no problem with Dr Arbel's research, and she would be foolish to go there. Instead she invokes protection of simple minds that could not understand the science. What? On this basis no science should be taught in high school!
And you, of course, don't know what you're talking about.
Don't just throw out meaningless garbage. What is there in my statement that you think is false.
ALL of your post is BS. First of all, Genie Scott does not "obfuscate." You misrepresent her statement and her intent regarding Werner Arber.
You also misrepresent what Scott clearly objected to, and - instead - engaged in a somewhat strawman argument assigning positions to her she does not hold.
You are a typical religious zealot propagandist. Take your myths back to the dungeons of your church and stay there.
A beautifully done post, Steve. Kudo's to you, sir.
*-steve-** Paul, you are a fucking idiot.............hope this helps.*
Did you just copy and paste the same comment over and over again?
10 to the 164 power! The probability of a SINGLE PROTEIN to ensemble by chance!!! And you don´t believe in a creator?!! looooolll so many ignorant people in this world!!!
Mostly amongst those who adopt the "god musta dunnit" solution to every mystery. Watch this scientific space. Religion has demonstrated nothing other than the promotion of ignorant superstition to keep the masses cowed in their subordinate places.
It seems to me that i have more knowledge of science in one finger that you in your all body! So your argument is: that because some humans used religion to subordinate others or to justify anything, that is proof that a creator does not existe?! LOOL AHAHAHAH Tell me what you think of the SCIENTIFIC theory that says the entire universe works like a giant brain? Or that are infinite parallel universes with infinite versions of "you", or that when you die some particles of your body carrying memory leave you and probably enter other dimensions (life after death?!)? LOOOL you know nothing about science and less about arguments. But you know how to follow the trend without questions!!! And that´s enough for coward man or blind trendy ignorants, right? God bless you.
Frederico Silva
When you have synthesised and tested 10 to the 164 power amino acid sequences and tested them to see how many are close, equal to or better than the one that nature has come up with, come back and report your results. Then calculate the probably of their being a god who could be so clever as to "create" life. That way we can compare the probabilities and see which is more likely.
Well of course there is a creator! The evidence for god is.........fart sound
@@fredericosilva3640 Check your definition of the word 'Theory'. Is Merriam-Webster's good enough for you? :- "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject." That's science; it's not forcing unproven ideas down anybody's throat. The Holy Bible fits in there quite nicely, too.....
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.
This is the first I've actually seen of Eugenie Scott in action. I'm reasonably impressed, she handled the situation pretty well.
I would have expanded a wee bit upon the string theory analogy. This constant hammering on the suggestion that it's evidence of conspiracy to not teach high school students high level scientific concepts needed to be responded to more firmly.
Not that the moderator seemed to be doing any work at all aside from occasionally saying "you've answered the question".
If it's present, contamination can quite easily make dates obtained by radiometric means null and void. I never made a claim that no conditions could keep contamination from happening, just that the conditions in question weren't likely to. I also never claimed that all the samples you cite were contaminated, I instead cited 14c being available from decay of heavier elements. YOU apparently can't read.
stefhenhaires--
Did you see my other remark on this page concerning the Texas school Board's choice regarding Social Studies textbooks?
actually i have problems trying to get a straight answer from you.
if you re-read the question, you'll notice it was rather simple:
since you dont trust nas or berkeley or cern as scientific sources, which scientific sources DO you trust?
I "Googled" the 2nd one, "Is Life Unique" and while I didn't read the paper, I did read THIS:
"More bad science in the literature by PS Myers"
It totally lambastes Abel's paper and also points out that the peer-reviewed publication that published it has pulled it from its website.
I've also found out how peer-review journals are qualified; they have to be listed in Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports.
This makes about as much sense as our previous "discussion" on human population growth
@MaximusArurealius I shouldn't have to tell you that Newtonian gravity was replaced with General relativity or that Pastur's work has been vastly improved upon or that we have more accurate measurements for the circumference of the earth than Eratosthenes. Everyone who's been to school knows that.
Where do you people come from?
"His alchemy cannot be seen solely in connection with his chemical experiments but was also a link between his religious beliefs and his scientific aims”. Karin Figala, “Newton’s Alchemy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Newton, ed. I. Bernard Cohen and George Edwin Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 375. Many of his experimental studies used esoteric language and vague terminology more typically associated with alchemy and occultism.
"What is the Alchemy that Isaac Newton practised/Believed?" did you not read my previous post?
i will copy-paste for your benefit, but next time please read more carefully, it's right there on the FIRST sentence:
"newton also believed in alchemy(literally that lead could be magically transformed into gold)"
nobody is denying he was a genious or belittling his many contributions. my point is that just because he believed in something doesnt make it so(alchemy and christianty, for example).
can you tell me, in your own words, what exactly do you think the theory of evolution says?(not why you think its wrong, only what you think it says)
You'll go far telling others who disagree with you that they are ignorant and don't know anything.
"i only want all aspects of Evolution taught. "
And what aspects of evolution do you think are not taught in science classes?
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.
@MaximusArurealius Exactly. Darwin is pretty much irrelvent in evolutionary theory these days. That's why we call it Evolution and not "Darwinism". Just the same way that we don't refer to Eratosthenes calculations when we say the world is spherical. Erastosthenes wasn't totally wrong, if memory serves he was 70 miles out, but science has moved on from then. Same with Darwin, same with Newton, same with Pasteur.
@Korona41 "But maco & microevolution in biology should be mentioned."
Both are mentioned: one is gene/allele frequency mutation and the other is speciation. The only mechanism that differs is time.
Aber's work (from the 70's if I'm not mistaken) raises no difficult task for molecular biology nor modern evolutionary synthesis theory. Arber's work is being used here by Dunbar as a false Trojan horse since his work has nothing to say about abiogenesis and makes no comment on such.
??? the school board can't discuss Pedagogy??
"the art or science of being a teacher" isn't for the school board to discuss?? What is wrong with our country!!!!
i asked for yoru own words,
what do YOU think the theory of evolution says?
that definition you found seems to be for abiogenesis(which btw is not a theory, but a hypothesis), not evolution.
abiogenesis is about origins of life. evolution doesnt care about the origins of life, only about how life changes.
"I don't think we're for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule)
@MirabiliaMania Yes, there are lots of new species created, the species FAQ gives them with the references in the literature. Do you really believe all of those papers noting speciation are all falsified?
The modern theory of evolution includes adaptation within a species but it is not limited to just that.
cont.... The whole issue was about asking students to use skepticism and keep an open mind when studying theories. As science itself is built on the premise of skepticism, and rightfully so. In fact according to the recent published data, the same modern synthesis which Scott has defended for so many years, has apparently "crumbled beyond repair" And this fact has been made explicit. And this is coming from (not just ID scientist, but) from non ID scientist as well.
Empty reply using the fallacious tactics.
-Ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
-Poisoning the well - a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says
-Abusive fallacy - a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
I would like to ask Miss know it all genie, what would a naturalistic beginning look like, you need to be more clear and specific than that
@MaximusArurealius Umm Max Westenhofer died in '57. The quote doesn't reflect modern paleontology.
@types10000 Please excuse me; you are correct, of course; I have only now looked at the thread more thoroughly; my mistake.
Eternal life has already began for me. My physical body will phase out then I'll transition into a new imperishable body forever. It will be seemless. Christians arent sitting around waiting to be rescued. We are busy working together, building our churches, feeding hungry, active in the community, teaching others about the gift of eternal life and enjoying our families & friends. We love life. It's all we'll ever know.
actually sequitur.
the theory of evolution by natural selection(what biologists mean when they say "evolution") started with darwin.
newton was long dead before darwin was even born. thus newton cannot have an opinion about it.
also can you tell me, in your own words, what you think the theory of evolution by natural selection says?
i'm asking you, in your own words, what do you think the theory of evolution(what modern biologists mean when they say "evolution") means? i suspect a wrong definition might be at the source of your opposition. so here's my(extremely short) definition
1)life reproduces
2) offspring inherit traits from their parents and their own particular mutations.
3) those individuals better adapted to their environment have a higher chance to survive long enough to reproduce, and thus(continues)
@pbaylis1
I have a question for you as from your answers it's not entirely discernable. You're a creationist? If so, what kind of creationist? Young earth, old earth, flat earth... I'm sure there are a host more but I can't think of them off the top of my brain. Further, if you ARE a creationist, what lead you to this conclusion? How do you justify your position? Is it a bibilically based position? Which passages from the bible justify your position? If you're NOT a creationist, move along.
Though Newton lived before Darwin, Newton was not unacquainted with the atheistic evolutionary theory on origins. He was convinced against it and wrote:
"Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing." Newton
HIS WORDS ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT A CREATOR. DUH
The Le Contequote? he died in 1901, as with Westenhofer he died before much of the fossil record we now have was discovered.
just a short excerpt from wikipedia:
"Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] "
Genie's patience is almost superhuman
I can't help noticing that all you sources seem to be at least 50 years old or so obscure that you often can't find the authors in an encyclopedia... Why so you suppose that is?
do you trust oxford as a scientific source?
OK, let's explain this one. One of the antibiotics to which the strains in question were found to be resistant was clindamycin. Clindamycin has been classically linked to resistant clostridium strains and the strains in question were indeed clostridium. This should come as no surprise. In addition, the individuals in question died from lead poisoning and heavy metals contamination has been linked to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Done. Have a nice day.
i wonder what part of my post you were unable to understand. i'll try simpler words.
what scientists mean by "the theory of evolution"(the one modern day biologists use) started with darwin.
newton was long dead before darwin was even born. that means newton had no opinion about what modern day scientists mean when they say "the theory of evolution"
hopefully that clears that up.
"Conflating ideas doesn't make your case appear any stronger."
Not having an understanding of the definition of "evolution" or the word "metaphysics" makes your statement pointless.
@types10000 Whose philosophy? Oh, so the justice system isn't based on the big principle of philosophy, "you must back up your claims, either with some form of credible evidence or sound logic"? Also, it is in fact possible for one to prove a negative (albeit, most instances where one would do this would be in the process of also proving a positive contradicting that negative).
Why would a creative force be necessary to do anything but invent a fiction like creationism?
@Korona41 "Cynthia Dunbar is a force to be reckoned with!"
Unfortunately for Cynthia, Arber's work (that Cynthia is directly talking about) deals with the abiogenic processes and NOT the evolutionary processes.
A simple trip to your local wiki will avail one of so much knowledge it truly astounds.
Scott's right. Arber's work is highly detailed and quite complex and has no place within a high school classroom. Basics are what is required. Learn to walk then run.
You can just hear in Cynthia's voice toward the end, she's thinking... I GOT HER! They're teaching ideology! She sounds so self-assured as if she led Dr. Scott down a rabbit hole and Dr. Scott fell right in. When really, Cynthia demonstrated quite clearly how ill informed her side of the debate is about science.
Yes, we want to teach the viewpoint of the scientific community... it's a consensus based on empirical evidence. That's what science is.
Why the hell can't a school board talk about the science of teaching????????????????
Students are not taught "strengths and weaknesses" in the class. They are taught the facts. i think you misunderstand what this was about. This whole court hearing is to add those words to the phrasing of the mission statement for the school districts. Thus opening the door for creationists to jam in anything they consider a weakness...for example: religious beliefs.
"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959), was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] can't be explained in terms of micro-evolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters can't be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists." *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p86
In all the other clips from this hearing, all the other board members address Dr. Scott taking into account her PhD.
Only Cynthia Dunbar addresses Dr. Scott as MS. Scott, a very slay and not to subtle "dig."
Dunbar is truly destable.
You didn't answer the questions:
1 Did the very accurate instruments AMS detect radiocarbon?
2 Did Schweitzer find soft pliable blood vessels, and blood components and collagen in the T-Rex Bone that was cut open?
3 Are there other examples of soft tissue in fossils?
4 How quickly does biological tissue decay in lab testing?
5 How does the half-life of mtDNA at 521 years and 2 to 4 times less for DNA confirm quick decay, young fossils/Earth, and falsification of Deep Time/Evolution?
Based on your claim we would have never made it to the 17th century. The average birth among a married women would have been closer to 5-6. The life expectancy in 17th century was lower, & yes many babies died during this period, but this was because hygiene was not a big concern among many Europeans and Americans of European descent. In other areas of the world were civilizations & culture had already thrived for many thousands of years, the virtuous of keeping your body clean were well known.
PART 1 OF 2
G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Yeah. I just explained that. I also explained how that could occur. What's your point? Or, did you just not bother to read my post?
The Creationist Christian, Isaac Newton’s discoveries/contributions/studies include: classical mechanics, optics, infinitesimal calculus & calculus, laws of motion, universal gravitation, planetary motion, heliocentric model of the cosmos, built the 1st practical reflecting telescope, theory of colour from prism showing visible spectrum, empirical law of cooling, speed of sound, power series, binomial theorem to non-integer exponents, and Newton's method approximating the roots of a function.
ok i'll play along. lets assume that what modern biologists call evolution is some sort of fable.
could you kindly tell me, in your own words, what you think this table says?(not sure how many times i've asked already but you seem to go out of your way to avoid telling me what you think it says)
@vryc
I could use those same appeals re your own belief system, particularly appeal to authority.
I'm interested in seeing how honest you are, regardless of whether total proof exists. Honesty that comes from: a) knowing your own, and science's, limitations (remember the doggie?) and b) that can say, at least, "I honestly don't know, but if this is of God, then I may have to change my belief system", not reaching for the first out clause you can lay your hands on. Do you think you have that?
These are just three of many more I can also cite........
D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47-65 (2009).
David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).
Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
Some years ago, "Time" magazine did a study of scientists in the US regarding their religiosity and, if memory serves me correctly, something 88% of those scientists polled were either Atheist or Agnostic.
Indeed, Thomas Edison, though dead, clearly falls into this category and if you don't believe me, look up his speech that he made when he participated in the building of a memorial to Thomas Paine; Edison turned the first ceremonial shovel.
@MaximusArurealius Really? Potholer cites his sources. Perhaps you should read them and then you can make a video telling us how you know better than professional scientists.
@MaximusArurealius So you don't know what ring species are. When you find a large geographical feature say, a mountain range, we find that animals adapt to form new species as they spread down either side of the range. all the species of a certain animal can breed with their immediate neighbours down one side of the range. And all of the species of the same animal can breed with their imediate neighbours down the otherside. When the two sides meet though the species cannot breed with each other.
@MaximusArurealius Umm, mylon eating bacteria. London Underground Mosquito? Observed speciation. There's more but those are my favourite examples.
I've already addressed this same post. You're repeating yourself again.
heloizyjhenifer,
It's precisely the same problem that religious people have with happy people who belong to other religions or having no religion at all.
They're angry and call the other person's beliefs false.
This isn't necessarily so terrible unless it has to manifest itself against facts like evolution and that the law says their children must learn it (but really don't have to accept it).
@MirabiliaMania We haven't? One example of directly observed evolution is a Flavobacterium (nylonase) that evolved to eat nylon, a man-made product.
Good job getting upvotes from a few people that unfortunately did not know that, though.
The Ensatina salamanders from Central Valley in California. Would you like another example or are you happy to concede your point now?
Couple of questions....what is "more complex....a grain of rice or a human being? Please explain how you determine what organisms are "more complex" and which are "less complex." What is "more complex"...a cat or a dog?....a frog or a horse?
Oh yeah...have fun turning yourself into knots answering these and justifying your answers. (For the record...the rice genome has more genes than the human genome. Does that mean rice is "more complex"). What standard are you using?
He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.
@MaximusArurealius You might want to read the rest of the stanley quote. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.
Nice quote mining attempt. It's taken me what? 20 minutes to disprove by looking for the original text
The point being that you have no eyewitnesses. You also have to realize that physical evidence is considered much more reliable than eye-witness testimony. This has been the case for many decades in courts of law and has ALWAYS been the case in science.
none of those seems to be a definition of evolution, i will answer any questions AFTER you tell me what you think evolution says.
it's important to define terms as to avoid confusion.
@MaximusArurealius I would suggest that someone who had to be told what punctuated equilibrium is and thought it was a criticism of evolution isn't in position to assess the validity of Evolution. Also only creationists use the terms micro and macro evolution; macro evolution is just the accumilation of micro evolutionay change. You realise that phylogenetics is used in court?
that didnt answer the question, that was dancing around the bush and throwing red herrings. so i ask you again.
what exactly, in your own words, do you think the theory of evolution says?(please notice i'm not asking why you think it's wrong. i'm asking what you think it says)
@MaximusArurealius
Abiogenesis and evolution are linked, but the are "not the same".
Try rereading my original comment. I said: "I wish I got penny everytime a creationist confuses abiogenesis with evolution."
Abiogenesis is concerned with how animate matter derived from inanimate matter. How life got started from non-life. Evolution then explains how life diversified. They are linked because they are both concerned with 'life', but they are NOT the same.
@MaximusArurealius
... it's being taught in science classes all over the world. If it's not science then demonstrate why it isn't.
it IS relevant what it says, how can you oppose what something says if you dont even know what it says?
that's making a decision with no information.
you seem to be stating reasons why you dont like it("it has no base on biology, etc)
that's not what i asked
i suggest you read the question carefully so that you can answer it:
"what exactly, in your own words, do you think the theory of evolution says?(please notice i'm not asking why you think it's wrong. i'm asking what you think it says)"
There are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 combinations of a standard deck of playing cards after a shuffle.
So, shuffle a deck and lay the cards out; the odds of laying out the cards in the order that you did is obviously incredibly small but the fact remains you did do it even if the odds HERE (not "hear" as you spelled it) are infinitesimal; these are REAL statistics.
"the salt water platypus"
i searched but all i got was a religious website, so far i havent found any scientific sources that mention any salt water platypus, could you kindly mention a few scientific sources where i can verify? thanks
those few animals in the tiny ark had to be remarkably hardy to make the incredibly long voyage to their native lands. imagine the koalas,ants,frogs and sloths walking/swimming back home, while at the same time avoiding predators. and pandas carrying bamboo.
Cynthia Dunbar's questioning style is quite reminiscent of that employed by Fox News - you get the impression she is trying to corner Eugenie Scott into saying something that can be twisted and used against her.
stefhenhaires--
01.
That said, then you've missed a lot of the points both of this video and of the other posters.
I have never experienced anything supernatural; I personally cannot accept the idea of there being anything supernatural.
If people want to show me either a repeatable supernatural occurrence or show me a peer-reviewed paper on such things, that's fine, until that happens I maintain there is nothing supernatural.
again that definition seems to be about abiogenesis, not evolution.
i think we're getting closer to the source of your confusion.
you seem to be conflating hypothesis like abiogenesis with the theory of evolution and mixing it up with a literal interpretation of the jew creation myth.
since you seem to like wikipedia, how about reading the wikipedia article on evolution?
@SatchmoSings My bad, I meant supernatural, not natural.