Senator Asks For Proof Of Evolution, Discovers He Doesn't Actually Understand What It Is
Wikipedia defines evolution as "the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Creationism, on the other hand, is defined as "the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."
Key difference: Evolution is part of science. Creationism is part of belief systems.
In Louisiana, a movement to help get creationism taught in science classes hit a snag when this snappy teacher decided to stand up and explain how it isn't actually science. As the state senator starts asking questions, it becomes clear that he doesn't actually know how evolution works...
For those playing the home game, the senator had evolution backwards. His understanding of evolution is that all creatures eventually turn into humans, whereas in reality, it's that one common ancestor split off in a billion directions, with humans becoming just one arbitrary direction of billions of potential outcomes.
ORIGINAL: By retired science teacher Darlene Reaves on behalf of Repeal Creationism's Zack Kopplin who manages to understand how evolution works even at the dapper age of 19 and who also testified at the hearing. Starring the brilliant rhetorician Louisana Sen. Mike Walsworth (R).
Monday January 21, 2013, 12:57 pm
Louisiana, of course!
I would have liked to see the rest of that discussion.
It is evident that they are not talking about the same thing, although they both call it evolution. Is this fellow a product of the Louisiana education ststem, the same one considering creationism as a subject worthy of teaching??
Does she , somewhere along the way, say "Wait a minute, there is no concept in evolution that says other species "become" humans?
I hope this fellow is not on any science related committee.
Monday January 21, 2013, 1:21 pm
You're welcome Roger. Thanks for the excellent questions Mitchell. You cannot currently send a star to Mitchell because you have done so within the last week. Any one want to answer any of Mitchell's questions?
Monday January 21, 2013, 1:30 pm
Okay, after a little research, either this Senator is playing at "dumb," or really believes in fairy tales.
The sad part is that he was elected to a respectable position (perhaps by a severely ignorant populace) and is incapable of understanding the issues that come before him. If he is basing his information on biblical material alone, he is, like the minister in Dover ,Pa., who some years ago told Ted Koppel, of "Nightline" that he resents outsiders telling him that he can't think, but will "...accept no information that does not" jive with the bible.
I wish that this fellow would read Darwin, Dawkins and Carl Sagan's :the Demon Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark."
I must admit that I am flabbergasted!
Monday January 21, 2013, 7:08 pm
When I was "taught" evolution, it was protrayed as a straight line from single cell to human through "monkeys", but there was a missing link of which much was made. I never bought into evolution as science or even good theory. I was an atheist at the time, but a researcher first and evolution never made sense to me, not even in its various permutations, the most recent of which was proposed by DNA/RNA researchers, as the Tree of Life, but not as portrayed in this article. Even so, they noted, without any evidence, that mouse dna was older by eons than human or chimp. They offered genetic evidence that mouse dna was closer to human dna than were chimps or gorillas.
Evolution in any permutation or theory, is not scientific, but evidential. Creationism is not scientific, but is evidential. They are both theories, philosophies. Either can have evidence as to validity and probability, some science can be employed to develop that evidence, but evolution is not science nor can it be proved scientifically. Of the two, using occam's razor, creation is the most probable theory.
Monday January 21, 2013, 10:45 pm
Demonstrating what an ignoramus you are on TV!!- problem is most of the US population is just as ignorant. Science is going by the way side to be replaced with religion and hokum.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 2:42 am
Cyan has got it all wrong: evolution IS science and HAS been proved scientifically!
Evolution got a bad deal because the name of this law has remained 'theory.' Why do we say the 'theory' of evolution, but the 'law' of relativity? Creationists would have you believe it's because it still hasn't been proven, but that is not the case.
When Darwin's The Origin of the Species came out in 1859 people must have started calling it a 'theory,' but by now, the evolution of all the species through natural selection has been proven over & over again.
This is explained better I could in a Wikipedia Talk, part of a Series on Evolutionary Biology: Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse. In the context of creationists' claims, the word "theory" is used in its vernacular meaning as an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation, and the purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, this claim cannot be substantiated.
. ... the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations. Evolutionary theory integrates observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments into a rational explanatory scheme. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Scientific theories in evolutionary biology present causal explanations for the observable and measurable phenomena of life on Earth. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution. These and other evolutionary theories can be expressed in mathematical terms of population genetics or through rational logic where human reasoning is applied. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by convergent scientific evidence. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:27 am
All confusion is the so-called science. Evidence is one thing. Scientific method is another, has to be replicated in a controlled setting. Evolution "theory" and experiments that purport to "prove" something, change from minute to minute. There are many, many things that cannot be explained by the many, many "explanations" of evolution (Darwinism, natural selection, alleged mutation, "Tree of Life", Big Bang Theory, whatever it is that that rabid madman Dawkins said).
It has been alleged herein by Diva, that math "proves" her definition of evolution. I think mathematicians would laugh at that. In fact, it is math that makes the various theories and explanations that people loosely and confusedly call evolution, so unprovable and untenable. Anybody know anything about fractals and the existence of such and its probable impact on the very incomplete theories of evolution (how many are there now? I count over 5 main ones, but no agreement among proponents of the varied concepts)
"Evolution" however loosely defined, has been adapted/adopted in the social non sciences as foundational theory for social organization.
There is only evidence and philosophy, pro and con. Are "evolutionists" talking origins of species? by what provable method? How did man get here? By the common ancestor spread in a billion directions or a straight line from a single organism culminating in man (whose most direct "ancestor" used to be chimps/gorillas but dna research pretty much killed that) .
Name the math that you allege "proves" your version of evolution. I think you call natural selection. IMN@BHO, it explains very little.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:37 am
Diva Wikipedia is not a valid source. I've read the journals on the human genome project, and nucleic acid research, I've read Darwin (who was a plagiarist and contradicted himself, changed his "theories" was not a scientist by any stretch, made observations-on a limited population that did not include any "higher" or lower life forms) Dawkins, studied microbiology, stem cell research, mathematics, and there is no "synthesis" of theory "explaining" much.
The reason it is a theory(ies) is that there is little or no proof that can be replicated in a lab. There never will be. It is and has taken on the characteristics of a religion, with a very confused theology.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:40 am
Evolution has been tested and stands the test of time. As science is self- correcting, details of the "theory" change from time to time but the evidence is the evidence.
Scientists generally use the word theory (versus hypothesis) for something that has stood the test of time and yet acknowledging that further research can change the details.
And as was quoted above:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".[
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:49 am
There has never been a test that has proved any of the socalled hypotheses. That is why new hypotheses are constantly being proposed. The statment that biology only makes sense in light of (which) evolution (thoery, is just an opinion by a man. What about all the mysteries in life? biology is not the be all and end all of the subjects purportedly explained by evolution synthesis, like the mentioned paleontology, geology et al.
Everything is explained by Creationism, even evolution.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 10:16 am
Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has NOT ONLY been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and CORROBORATED EMPIRICALLY by CONVERGENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Evolutionary theories continue to generate NEW TESTABLE HYPOTHESES within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.
Paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology are THEOLOGY? IDEOLOGY?
The reason why 'theory' as opposed 'law' is used by scientists describing the phenomena of evolution is explained by the Wikipedia author when he says, "...the SCIENTIFIC (as opposed to the vernacular) DEFINITION of 'THEORY' refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations." Evolution is too great, comprises too many elements, is too multiplicitous to be reduced to one single 'law'.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 10:36 am
Linear development within a species is natural and occurs within the species parameters. Species evolving into other species only occurs with direct genetic manipulation or cross breeding which bring us to man. I don't think that we will ever find the missing link because one doesn't exist. Perhaps there might be something to Sitchin's theory after all. It is certainly what the elites of society believe.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 1:56 pm
We call a law a law when it's finite - no more stuff to find out there. We call a theory a theory when there's more to add. The basic principles of evolution are not in question but we're finding out more neat stuff about it all the time.
This senator is like most who don't "believe" in evolution; they don't know anything about it. TY for posting.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 2:42 pm
"Elite of society"?? who are "they" and why should I care or be bound by what "the elite" say.
Diva-I don't know where you got your shouted Theology or ideology equating to geology, certainly not from anything I said. Your reliance on Wikipedia is laughable.
Suzanne-what are the principles of evolution? They are questioned constantly, otherwise, there would be no research purporting to support the "principles". What "neat" stuff are "we" finding out all the time about it? That we are not as genetically close to chimps as we are to mice?
What is the basis of science? or the authority which you place in it? Science is a philosophy, and/or an epistemology (how we "know"). What it is not, is a monolithic universal stand alone or above all other ways of knowing or beliefs nor is it independent of man's mind and observation and truth in and of itself.
Evolution started as incomplete, inadequate, small sample observations made by people other that Darwin, who plagerised (sp) their writings and theories and published first. Darwin and his "peers" were actively engaged in trying to find a way to vaunt their own intellects and "disprove" God and religion.
"Science" is a philosophy, a way of knowing. Evolution in all its theories, hypotheses and its selective edits of observation and evidence, is a belief system as is Creationism. Creationism however explains everything, including evolution, where our limited knowledge and observation may appear to support whatever theory or principle is touted at the moment.
Diva your adamant "belief" supports the idea that evolution is a secular religious sect in the theology of science, in opposition to the Creator and God and Nature's God and Divine Providence cited in our Dec of Independence, and believed in by most of the founders, even as they acknowledged the tool of science for greater understanding of man's place in the universe. Science should be a tool for greater understanding, not a belief system to oppose/replace God or twist the evidence or misstate the evidence to support flawed theories or create "laws" that denigrate man and block greater understanding.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 3:09 pm
Micheal Kirkby Thanks for reminding me about Sitchin's theory. I don't necessarily believe it, but find it intriguing, especially since one of the genetic/mathematic studies I read came to the conclusion that all humans existing can be traced back to a single mother in (if I am remembering correctly) 243 generations. Not sure what that means; if all can be traced back to a single progenitor, a human mother, it hardly matters how many generations, except for dating humans on the earth. In any case, this is an example of genetic/mathematics supporting Creation, more so than "evolution".
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 4:57 pm
Sorry Cyan but I am not religious nor do I accept evolution as some would have me. I prefer to keep an open mind.
Then again as certain physicists hypothesize; maybe it is all just a matrix. Therefore are we the dreamer, the dreamed or both?
LOL I'll let you know when I get to the other side of my journey.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 5:08 pm
Some thought provoking comments here for sure leading to lively discussion--glad personal attacks are being avoided pretty well so that disagreements in preferred conclusions are phrased in respectful language.
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 7:45 pm
Greenplanet-I don't know what D'oh means, also it was peasantdiva that seemed to limit it to natural selection which I noted, so I don't know to whom you are directing your comment. I agree about natural selection, though I don't agree with it except maybe within species to a limited extent.
J.L.A. you are an exemplary person, and have set the closest to a pleasant tone as I have experienced on this site.
Theodore-I appreciate your position. I just want to define the issue, as I see it. The dichotomy is not between evolution as science and creation as belief. I see them both as belief systems. We don't have a choice of no philosophy or philosophy, no theology or theology, just good or bad philosophy/theology. I hope your mind is not so open it is a sieve and nothing sticks....makes for a bleak existence having no foundation or hope. Perhaps you have more of a philosophy than you know?
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 3:19 am
Sorry, but I must repeat: in terms of evolution vs creationism, there is no 'keeping an open mind'! Evolution is scientific FACT; creationism is a religion-based belief system for evolution deniers!
…is an attempt to convince the audience that evolution is only a guess that's open to debate. This is DEFINITELY NOT the case. The word “theory” means something special to SCIENTISTS.
In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on partial or inconclusive evidence. Scientists have hunches, too, but they call them hypotheses, which are the starting point of all good science.
A scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. A scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that unifies a vast body of reliable knowledge. In other words, a theory is born when a substantial number of hypotheses point to the same conclusion.
In science, a Theory:
•Explains a natural phenomenon.
•Predicts future occurrences or observations of the same kind.
•Can be tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
•Is Supported by a vast body of reliable knowledge.
What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections
(all of which are links on the "Understanding Evolution" site, a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education) :
-- An introduction to evolution: Evolution briefly defined and explained
-- The history of life: looking at the patterns: How does evolution lead to the tree of life?
-- Mechanisms: the processes of evolution: How does evolution work?
-- Microevolution: How does evolution work on a small scale?
-- Speciation: What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve?
-- Macroevolution: How does evolution work on a grand scale?
-- The big issues: What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer?
See the full table of contents here.
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 8:31 am
Diva, really you need to keep your mind open enough to at least see that you frequently miss the point of the views of others or at least acknowledge that you "believe" everything that purports to be science.You shouted "Evolution is scientific FACT; creationism is a religion-based belief system for evolution deniers!" I think you got it backwards. The idea of evolution was a belief system for creation deniers, cloaked in the mantle of ""assured results of modern science". Creationism came first-evolution was set to deny creationism. Even one of your sources says evolution is "demonstrated in a historical narrative constructed by scientist" Evolution (whatever is meant by that word) depending on the time in which the concept is invoked, is not a FACT, it is a concept, an everchanging historical narrative, barely "evidence". Science and its subset, evolution, which is being touted both as a result of science and proof of science, a tautology (sp) is by observation and definition, a belief system set in opposition to Creation. However, Creationism came first and early "scientists" and their "discoveries" have not disproved Creationism but have if anything, supported it. Even the Big Bang theory as the starting point is most similar to a starting point of a Creator by a different name.
Science/evolution is by definition, philosophy/theology. From the dictionary,
n pl -phies
1. (Philosophy) the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. (Philosophy) the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school the philosophy of Descartes
3. (Philosophy) the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline the philosophy of law
4. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) Archaic or literary the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
Diva, is your mind open to new science discoveries? Do you change your core belief in science when new "facts" emerge or contradict? Do you acknowledge that there could be another or better explanation for man's intelligence and dominance? Can you acknowledge that Creationism predates evolution so if there is any opposition, it comes from evolution? I submit you a religious belief system you call Evolution, stemming from a need to believe in anything but the God of Creation, your Creator, Divine Providence, Nature's God.
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 10:40 pm
Contrary to the statement that there cannot be an "open mind" regarding evolution Darwin never offered or provided any evidence for his central thesis of undirected process of natural select, defined as speciation. He relied heavily on theology for his contention/thesis and the results of selective breeding he saw in agriculture which he extrapolated into the imaginary scenario that there was enough time for natural selection/speciation to have occurred. He never nor have his true believers, ever solved or proved the title "origin of species". Speciation has never been observed in anything but flowering plants, resulting in a multiplication of chromosomes. If scientists supporting evolution/darwinism play by the rules of science, in order to prove speciation (1 species splitting and diverging, and each splitting and diverging to produce the branching tree effect) they have to have evidence of the process (observed) or show why such evidence cannot be found. A theory for which scientific evidence cannot be found is of dubious value. Rules of science require clear definition and logic.
In other words, natural selection has not and cannot be demonstrated. There is no "smoking gun" so the question of whether evolution is true or not is still open. A true scientist would still have an open mind on the question and not just "move the goalpost" to try to keep evolution alive. Several major problems also contribute to the dubious value of the theory of evolution. The evolution supporters have a major difficulty with the collapse of their assessment of "junk DNA" and the Cambrian explosion (the sudden appearance of complex life forms). The scientific journals have flatly stated the alleged pre cambrian fossils are not fossils at all, not organic, not animal, not bilaterian. Marsupial embryos also pose a problem for the textbooks, as the newest info shows that not all vertebrates embryos develope the same in the same order. Unfortunately, evolution as taught is not accurate or honest in light of existing research. Guess evolutionists will have to move the goal posts again. In the meantime, much should be changed in textbooks and teaching to be scientifically honest.
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 10:49 pm
To the person who stated that creationists have low IQ's, that is an ad hominem, and very personal attack, as are all such silly, ridiculous unsupported criticisms of the politician. He was taught that version of "evolution", which evolutionists put in textbooks and taught at the time and the criticism of him was not well founded.
Friday January 25, 2013, 11:11 pm
That senator hasn't got a clue what he is even taking about. Not only does he think that evolution only concerns humankind (as evidence by his statement/question of how e coli becomes human), but he has the whole process screwed up. I find it ridiculous that this person might be on a scientific committee or at least a committee evaluating evolution vs creationism for school instruction.
Sometime ago, I was doing some reading (can`t remember where now) about humans on this earth. Some millions of years ago, there was a great cataclysm that resulted in the great thinning of the human heard.. There were approximately 1,000 mated pairs left, which over time, spread out from the cradle of civilization in Africa to became the forebears of human life on this planet as we know it. These early beings did not have the title of `human`but went through stages such as australopithecus with its distinctive characteristics ie pronounced brow line, morphing or evolving into the next distinctive phase. This is evolution, scientifically documented with bone samples, skulls etc.
Creationism is on the , a belief system, a religious belief system. I am a liberal Christian, but I reject teaching Creationism as science. It can not be scientifically proven that I am aware of.
I swear, that senator looked like he was going to crap his drawers. Thanks JL for the picture on the article. Perfect.
Saturday January 26, 2013, 7:54 pm
I do not support teaching Creationism as science. I object to teaching evolution as science. Evolution is not proven. Every piece of evidence alleged to prove natural selection has been flatly rejected by the scientific community responsible for review. Some of this specious rejected evidence is still taught in textbooks and classrooms as fact even though long disproved.
1. the Cambrian "explosion"- the multitude of complex lifeforms in fossils "discovered" cast great doubt on evolution (natural selection) because there was no evidence in the pre cambrian record of any animal or bilaterian life forms, ossil or otherwise. Some "researcher" came up with a fossil which was dubbed "vernanimalcula" (sp). In the scientific journal "Evolution and ...." the scientists who studied this "evidence" stated flatly "There is no evidential basis for interpreting vernanimalcula as an animal let alone a bilaterian". It is not an organic fossil-it is completely inorganic.
2. "junk DNA" not junk at all. Evolutionists lose that argument due to further understanding.
3. textbooks state flatly that all vertebrates develop the same way in the same order, establishing embryonically the "proof" of evolution. However, the recent studies at several universities establishes conclusively that this is not true, in fact contradicts evolutionary claims. Marsupials develop limbs first.
These 3 evidential claims by evolutionists have been refuted and so far, there is no smoking gun to demonstrate/prove/support continued "belief" in Evolution/Darwinism. The actual evidence challenges and/or refutes Darwinism's evolutionary natural selection claims. This has not been accounted for in textbooks or classrooms, and if science, it certainly should be more honest and accurate.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 9:13 am
First of all, scientists never use the word "proven", that is left to the layperson. Same with theory versus fact. Scientists study well-documented theories (which are no longer phypotheses due to the level of evidence supporting them) and laypeople consider that theory to be a fact. Well, except for evolution.
Natural Selection (the driving force of evolution) can be and has been extremely well studied and documented. Rejected by the scientific community? EVERY PIECE? doubtful.
Rather than rejecting Junk DNA, for example, it is acknowledged as not junk at all. But what role does it play in evolution? SOme of it plays major role connecting "previous RNA world "Ribozymes" to modern day introns (and other catalytic RNA). No, it's not junk. But that does not make evolutionary theory junk either.
TEXTBOOKS? Really? You do realize that than educator overly simplifies a great deal of evidence into a simple model so that beginning students can "get it".
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:21 am
Nancy-your last stmt was revealing. A textbook that states as fact, something that is not, is not "over simplifying" but is wrong, dishonest and inaccurate. You actually think "getting" an inaccurate dishonest "model" is a good thing?
There has not been a "lot of evidence" to support evolution (natural selection) The science is not good science and the most recent "evidence" on which evolutionists have relied has been "revealed" as not supporting that which it purports to support. Evolutionists cited "junk DNA" as evidence of evolution. Since it has been "revealed" as not junk, evolutionists have to find another piece of "evidence". There has never been a smoking gun piece of evidence to support natural selection as origin of species. That is and has been a presupposition no more valid and much less valid than Creationism, which posits a Creator.
The newest "explanation", or "evidence" posited by evolutionists, since they have lost the pre-cambrian fossil, junk DNA and vertebrate embryonic development as evidence, is that the species Canine is not really a species, but proof of natural selection, in that all breeds of dogs are now to be considered different species. Darwin's plagerised concept of the undirected process of natural selection (speciation) as the "origin of the species" has had no evidence presented or found, and has never been observed. Evolutionists/Darwinists have not solved the problem of origin of species, they just keep moving the goal posts and changing the rules and concepts. A "scientific" theory for which no scientific evidence can be found is not only of dubious value but false. Evolution is not science and attempts to support it do not abide by the rules of science. There is not even clear circumstantial evidence that holds up under examination. Evolution is a belief system at best with a very poor "theology".
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:33 am
But the evidence is not incorrect. I have NEVER seen any evidence that disputes natural selection. In fact, it is a key tool in the lab to conduct experiments.
The evidence is what it is and the model is actually the interpretation but of course it is all consistent.
Junk DNA is still CALLED junk DNA< BTW, despite that fact that it is now known to have functions in many cases. And that function is some of that junk fully supports model of evolution.
In fact, "junk DNA" serves as a great example of model- building and the self-correcting nature of science. Once a function was know for junk DNA (though still called "junk" DNA), new models for evolution came about. Ribozymes, introns, and other catalyses/ Great way to teach.
Canines? Well look at them. Not that anyone considers them to be separate species. Tell me- cite a credible source that actually states that dog breeds are all different species.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:34 am
And BTW CYAN, I don't care if creationism is taught in school. I just want to see it where it belongs. NOT in a science class but in a social context concerning belief systems.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 10:55 am
I agree with you Nancy. Creationism should not be taught in science class. I go one step further-neither should evolution, though if evolution is taught as science, at least it should be presented with true and actual evidence and contrasted with Intelligent Design. Even the nucleic acid researchers indicate the computer program/software/machine/designed complexity evidence observed in their studies of the smallest particles found in their research. The further down researchers go, the more complexity found. More than a little opposite of what Darwinian evolutionists posit. How is this for an overly simplistic model? The smaller the particle, the more complexity exists. Does not support current hypotheses of evolution; it should be taught, in textbooks, in classrooms. The stupidest of students would "get" it.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 11:10 am
Evolution IS taught with true and actual evidence.
"Even the nucleic acid researchers indicate the computer program/software/machine/designed complexity evidence observed in their studies of the smallest particles found in their research. The further down researchers go, the more complexity found."
It seems that you are saying that DNA is more complex than organisms. And yet DNA is part of all organisms. Smallest particles? Are you talking quarks?
Sunday January 27, 2013, 11:14 am
Nancy - natural selection a key tool in lab experiments? Natural selection is not a "tool", it is a presupposition. The scientific method is recreation under controlled conditions. Natural selection has never even been observed, just posited in imaginary scenarios. I have never seen real evidence that supports evolution that withstood scientific inquiry. Show me any evidence that supports evolution. Junk DNA does not, neither does the proved not a fossil precambrian not evidence, nor vertebrate embryonic studies. The theory requires evidence, not evidence that disputes, otherwise it stands just like Creationism, unprovable by "scientific" evidence, but believed just the same.
I can't give you what I would think as credible source-I think even trying reclassifying each breed of dog as a separate species to shore up the "evidence" which is fast disappearing and never existed in the first place is ridiculous but it came from an evolutionary biologist and the prime spokesperson, at least in his own mind, for evolution. As soon as I remember it, I'll let you know and give you the context/source of his adamant statement. I consider it moving the goalposts again, not very scientific.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 11:31 am
Cyan- go read. There is plenty of evidence for natural selection. It is a model for evolution as well as a tool. It is everywhere. Go find some journal articles yourself.
Yeah, natural selection has been observed- go to your local hospital's microbiology lab for some evidence.
Nobody is trying to reclassify each breed of dog as a new species BTW. You have clearly misinterpreted an article, I believe from Science.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 11:42 am
Nancy-here is the exact quotation from Jerry Coyne evolutionary geneticist in Chicago. He posits a model as proof. That is not evidence.
"As Darwin did before him, Coyne noted that the development of new breeds through artificial selection is a good model for the evolution of new species by natural selection. He then offered a comment about dog breeds, also found in his book: “If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontologists would consider them not one species but many—certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today.”
And no, I am not saying that DNA is more complex than the organism, though depending on your interpretation, it may well be. Single cell organisms are incredibly more complex than previously thought and seem to carry within their structure great complexity that belies the organisms "simplicity". Nucleic Acid researchers have gone far beyond RNA/DNA in their interpretations of the smaller the particle they examine, the greater the resemblance to a designed, complex "machine" or computer program. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I can read and apply their conclusions and summaries logically. Evolutionary "models" are far too simplistic and lack evidence to support, in light of the complexity of the carriers of life, whatever they are named. In fact, belief in evolution is just that, belief without real evidence, fraught with presuppositions, lacking scientific method or observable evidence. The missing link is still missing, never to be found. The presupposition you call a tool, determines your interpretation of the outcome. No way is it anything resembling a valid scientific method, nor do evolutionists play by the rules of science with clear definitions and logic.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 11:54 am
Models are based on evidence Cyan. That is how science is done.
Yes, dogs are one of the most diverse animal. Notice that he say "If" these breeds existed today, they would be considered different species. The argument was being made based on size.
"Single cell organisms are incredibly more complex than previously thought and seem to carry within their structure great complexity that belies the organisms "simplicity"."
Yes, they are indeed. Because many human biologist have looked only at E. coli (complex enough) and not at the diversity that is out there.
Perhaps the basic evolutionary models that you are reading in your books are only simple to you because they are not the latest models based on new findings such as "junk" DNA (which is actually fairly old.
I would hardly reject a whole well supported theory based the the lack of one piece of evidence such as the "missing link".
Sunday January 27, 2013, 12:01 pm
Nancy-I've read everything I could get my hands and eyes on. I studied microbiology and am familiar with labs, experimentation, etc., also paleontology, medicine, geology, biology, physics. I was an honor student. I did not misinterpret what Coyne said. He clearly stated selective breeding was a valid model for natural selection. That is not proof or even evidence, especially since Darwinism depends on an undirected process of natural selection to result in speciation., which has never been observed except in flowering plants, resulting in multiplication of chromosomes, not necessarily a good thing, nor proof of origin of species, including animals and man. It is extremely illogical and irrational that a complex creature such as man, with intelligence and spiritual yearnings could be the result of such a limited, simplistic process. Evolution denigrates man, denies the existence of a soul, cannot account for or justify or explain morality. Every word out of Dawkins mouth and writings and his insistence that morality does not count, does not exist. For this reason alone, the lack of moral authority and the need to deny any possibility of God or something outside ourselves, is reason enough to question the validity of evolution. Science is a tool, evolution is a poor model for explaining life or origin of species. Neither can be God or guide us to any workable, free, healthy society. Evolution belief can only destroy man, morals and spirit.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 12:19 pm
Nancy you were the one that said the models presented in textbooks and classrooms were overly simplified so that students could "get" it. The current textbooks do not take into account what you call old evidence, junk DNA nor the fact that precambrian fossils do not exist to explain the complexity and diversity of life forms that are observed suddenly in the Cambrian period.
Your statement that the models are built on evidence is patently ridiculous in the face of the facts. The model came first. There is no evidence, just presuppositions, suppositions and tautologies and false logic.
E. coli is not the only organism studied. The nucleic acid researchers made their observations of the complexity of "cells", DNA/RNA and below, during the human genome project. Chimps, gorillas, rats, chickens were studied along with humans.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 12:29 pm
Actually Cyan, textbooks do have "Junk" DNA which I did not call old. The idea that it is "junk" is old but it is stilled dicussed in mordern textbooks when it comes to evolution and catalytic RNA.
I also never said that E. coli is the only organism studied.
My statement that models are built on evidence is TRUE. Even Darwin had evidence- more observational from his trip to the Galapogos than truly experimental.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 12:36 pm
I was referring to a different part of his statement. Let's think about selection. Selection by definition is directed. Darwin never said that it was undirected. He just claimed that traits did not come about due toforces causing the change but due to forces (selections) that SELECT for existing traits. Thus, he debunked Lamarck.
It does not matter if the selection is artificial or natural. They are both selections of previously existing traits based on a new force in the environment. Think about it since you claim to have taken microbiology. You have a hospital that uses a great deal of penicillin. And another that uses a great deal of tetracycline instead. In the penicillin hospital you find more resistance to penicillin and other similar antibiotics whereas in the second hospital you find more resistance to tetracycline. Would you call that natural or artifical. Or does it matter?
Sunday January 27, 2013, 1:23 pm
Nancy - evolution cannot account for intelligence, et al. Actually, it does say a lot about soul, morality by omission. Dawkins et al outright say evolution proves there is no God, which is why they are atheists and reject any basis for morals or any moral authority. I've heard and read Dawkins on this matter. And, we don't have religion and ethics to address those issues. Evolutionists in the main, at least the vocal ones consciously, deliberately and intensely reject religion and substitute evolution and/or science and even say things like there is no morality, there is only animal instinct for survival, that there is no "scientific" basis for morality or spirituality, that "science" that evolution has proven God does not exist and religion is myth. At least Dawkins is consistent in his beliefs and along with others who reject any philosophy other than evolution/science, has promoted atheistic new world government and have signed a proclamation to that effect.
I am aware of the antibiotic argument and the so-called "evidence" of Darwin. Neither are persuasive, dispositive or even evidence of a flawed "model" that purports to explain how life originated, much less speciation, with all its incredible diversity, mystery and majesty. Darwin was a plagarist, not too bright and feared his lack of intellect and the "devolution" he saw in himself (the result of reproduction between close family members - his worst fears born out by the genetic weaknesses he observed in his children borne by a close relative). His motive for his stolen theories was to repudiate God and religion and vaunt his hoped for superior intellect. His observations relied heavily on theology for evidence of the "truth" of his observations, also the selective breeding he noted, and Coyne has reverted to. Evidence is not necessarily true or factual. The so-called "evidence" relies heavily on presuppositions and interpretations, and flawed logic. Much is the result of first-order logical fallacies. I have noted tautologies in the "models" based on evidence based on models based on observations that later turned out to be false. Your argument that antibiotic resistance somehow is evidential support for natural selection is to me a tautology or a first order logical fallacy.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 1:43 pm
Next time you are at a hospital then, be sure to ask for the natural first generation antibiotics only, since all those bacteria didn't evolve. I'll be praying for you and your soul.
Sunday January 27, 2013, 2:12 pm
Nancy, now you are just being obdurately silly and irrational. Antibiotics don't work anymore, especially the synthetic ones like Cipro and levoquin. Nothing touches the antibiotic resistant bacteria., which mutated or adapted, still does not prove origin of species by natural selection. I will not go to a hospital voluntarily, nor will I seek medical treatment from any AMA doctor, nor will I get any vaccine or FDA approved drug. I almost died 7 yrs ago taking an antibiotic that left me with chronic conditions. There are herbs and supplements that work far better than any of the poisons prescribed and approved by junk scientists.
BTW, Coyne and Mirsky are calling for reclassification if only speciously. Quote " Let’s reassign the trembling, bug-eyed Chihuahua to its own species. Voilà, humans have observed speciation. We could call the new dog C. nervosis. Or C. cantseetheparadis. Or C. canyoupresstwelveformepleasis. Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. " He went on to claim that is ridiculous to continue this bogus classification and made an ad hominem comment about another scientist.
I've noticed you have not addressed any of my points on logic or the opposition by many of the true believers in evolution to religion, nor have you referenced any "evidence" that supports natural selection as origin of species. What you have indicated is evidence, sort of, for natural selection within species. I am not sure that the classifications of species that exists is actually valid;it certainly is confusing and I was taught that species were species because of reproductive barriers and sterility. Well, that seems to be breaking down, since dolphins and whales have mated and reproduced fertile and breeding true offspring. Maybe we have too many species within species classified. No matter. Your last statement clearly is cutting off discussion.
My soul is in my savior's keeping. If you were sincere and had the same belief system as do I, you would not have phrased it quite that way. Your comment is illogical and ad hominem and snarky. Too bad. It certainly does not support your argument in any way.