That's the wrong warning. Here's the warning which is needed:
The theory of evolution is part of the radical gay/lesbian agenda and can lead to homosexual behavior. Studies indicate that most of the people pushing evolution are homosexuals.
Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
"Evolution is a unifying theory with many gaps in the puzzle ("the missing link", maybe you've heard of it). Not so other theories."
Relativity, Big Bang, theory of flight, atomic theory, gravitation - all theories have gaps. If they didn't there wouldn't be anyone working on them.
Evolution is a very good explaination for the diversity of modern species and observed common descent in the fossil record. Despite gaps it is one of the best scientific theories in existance and has no competitors.
"The hoaxed Piltdown Man was a part of their "proof" in the past. "He" remained for decades."
And was exposed by scientists who accepted evolution. Furthermore Piltdown Man actually started to contradict the pattern of genuine hominid fossil found in subsequent years. There are now dozens of hominid fossil species that have been discovered since Piltdown man that overwhelmingly show that humans have evolved over time.
"Well, there are a lot of gaps in the evidence, and we're really not certain that the variety of species rose according to the classic theory of macro evolution, but it's the best thing we have going"
From current evidence common descent of species is considered beyond doubt. Macro-evolution is beyond doubt. The theoretical part of the theory of evolution is explaining the mechanisms for how this happened. For example it is not speculation that whales evolved from land animals, because not only are whales genetically similar to a certain group of mammals and share morphological similarities, but transitional fossils have been found. But it is currently speculation as to the precise genetic changes that occured for this to happen. So school books can use whale evolution as an example of evolution without having to resort to speculation of the genetic changes behind it.
Let's consider the record. We know there are about 1.4 million different genes expressed in various micro-organisms found in ocean water around the world (Check out a recent Discover on that one ~ the guy who speeded up the human genome project was fired, went out to sea, and checked out the bacteria, et al. Interesting stuff.)
Human beings have about 35,000 genes. Fruit flies have 15,000 to 20,000 genes. Many other animals have most of the same genes bugs and people have, and in comparable numbers.
So, what's going on? How can we have so few genes and have such profound differences ~ that's the current question.
Let's go back to all those genes in the bacteria. Presumably they do the bacteria some good, but what if we took a couple of the ones you don't have and added them to your genome in some manner ~ maybe through the bite of a deadly, but otherwise harmless almost microscopic spider. Maybe something would change. Maybe not. But definitely you would then have a bacteria derived gene in your makeup doing whatever it was able (supposed?) to do.
Envision having a vast storehouse of advanced genes which if placed in the correct organism could improve it's performance, much as we might fix up a 1957 Chevy by adding a supercharger.
It's not evolution, and I don't know if it's design, but it's certainly possible.
Maybe the "evolution" we speak of actually applied to a situation tens of billions of years ago on a long vanished quiet place in the vastness of space before the creation of the current universe, or at least our portion of it.
That evolution "happened", and led ultimately to the creation of a great machine we call "life", and all it is now is a recombination of the ancient lineages of life as expressed in the structures we call genes.
No doubt it's half a dozen of one and 6 of the other to the genes. They "express" themselves properly whether working in a haploid or a diploid form, and that's something to really think about. We are, after all, during a critical stage of our lives, nothing but single cell animals.
NO ONE SAID IT IS FACT!!!! You people need to ge a little more scientifically literate before you spew!
Gravity is a "theory" as well. Where is the disclaimer sticker on that?
The whole gist of this article is that the author was POed that his writing was not "beyond doubt". You just admit that part is a theoretical explanation.
Have I discounted that things evolved? No. I have said that some of the explanation is conjecture, prone to error, bias, and later correction and as such should be identified as such.
To some it is heresy to admit that science doesn't have all the answers at this time.
Answer 34:
We do not understand your question as everything existing is made up.And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.
It just doesn't make sense if it wasn't evolution from common descent.
And, no, "common designer" doesn't make "just as much sense" as common descent. It's nowhere near as tight a hypothesis. ("Common designer" where the designer is presumed to be omnipotent excludes nothing which can be imagined.) Furthermore, no sensible motive for "the designer" to do what he would seem to have done is yet apparent.
And who exposed the hoax?
Was it some random "Creationist Scientists" who finally got it right? Or was it a few real scientists who finally got to examine the bones and write a real report on what they found?
Huummmm? Come on now, it's not that difficult a question, is it?
„Ï Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." ¡X*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.
„Ï "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research¡Xpaleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology¡Xhas provided ever-increasing evidence of Darwinian ideas."¡X*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327
„Ï The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity¡Xomnipotent chance."¡X*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102
„Ï "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence¡Xrandom mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."¡XI.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205
„Ï "To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."¡X*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
„Ï The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."¡X*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist (1981) Vol. 9, pp. 521, 527.
„Ï "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and lawman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."¡X*B. Leith, The Decent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11
„Ï "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea. As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's thoery, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."¡X*Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.
Do you have faith your ancestors were apes? Reptiles? Amphibians? One-celled amoebas?
Uhm...well...since we are primates, we are apes NOW. So yeah. Your an ape and so is your mother. Like myself and all humans.
Which is it?
2) My decendents depend on how far back we ae going.
I am an ape in the sence that I, as are all human, am Order PRIMATE (same as you, your mother, and Gorilla's and Chimpanzees).
Thanks for those quotes. They are very pertinent. Macro evolution is a fable. Today's conventional wisdom says the fable happened. But conventional wisdom once said the earth rested on an elephant and the earth is flat. It is ironic that modern materialists often refer to creationists as flat earth people when they are the actual sons of the flat-earthers.
But all those observations fail to point to the evolutionary theory as the exclusive valid explanation. All those observations are just as supportive of the idea that God created in six days and created life to multiply after their kind.
Not at all. How does any other theory but evolution explain why island species are similar to mainland species, and the difference is largely proportional to the distance between them and time seperated?
How does Creationism explain the change in life over time according to the fossil record? Creationism would be backed up by a static fossil record, not a changing one.
If you have a problem with biology, geology, physics and cosmology then I give up.
yes but as I stated, there are parts of the theory of evolution that are beyond doubt and those should be presented as fact in education, because they are treated as fact in science.
Do you actually know what is in highschool biology textbooks to know that they present the theoretical stuff as fact, and not the beyond doubt stuff?
That's the wrong warning. Here's the warning which is needed:
The theory of evolution is part of the radical gay/lesbian agenda and can lead to homosexual behavior. Studies indicate that most of the people pushing evolution are homosexuals.
Homosexuality is the survival of the queerest.
What people think "theory" means in science, and what it actually means in science, are two very different things.
Gravity, for example, is only a "theory."
Thermodynamics--which many creationists claim "proves" the "theory" of evolution is impossible--is, in itself, only a "theory."
God created evolution...what's the problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
_std.jpg)