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 ...
"Wrong, and the entire literature of the subject refutes that."
Please be so kind as to post something from a reputable scientific journal that refutes the fact that micro and macroevolution are the same process.
from talk origins:
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we
henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the
doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given
the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed
sound strange.
And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona
fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics
Teilardism and the New Religion
Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5
Excellent summary.
It's also the homosexual agenda masquerading as science.
Diversity within a species-that is, variation-they called "microevolution," and the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed "macroevolution."
variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.
The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution."
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call "microevolution" cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to "macroevolution." In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:
The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains unsolved.34
The fact that "microevolution" cannot lead to "macroevolution," in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No.35
34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology", Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added)
35 R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.
I think you might as well believe that 747s are made by tornadoes passing through junkyards. I think you might as well believe that if you find a digital watch laying around it formed from natural forces. I agree with the chief editoe of the Encyclopedie Francais, who said "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." I think that if I told you a frog turned into a prince instantaneously you would call it a fairy tale, but if we work in 300 million years, you'd call it science.
Oh, and I think you should read these questions:
LOL try to find a reputable biologist who says that.
Macro and microevolution are the same process.
"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
What is the sense of repeating this?
Are you calling me a homosexual? If so, you are violating the rules.
I wouldn't try to answer the list from AIG that Silverback threw out. It is the same old stuff.
What imagined right has the school board trampled on by the mere use of a sticker? You must be a worshipper of the clean book god. And you are right, the school board is elected just as is Congress. By your definition we have no say in anything passed by Congress. That would be ludicrous. My point is pretty clear, the study of biology is not a right that has to be provided by schools.
And your minority argument is extremely weak, as any person could claim that teaching evolution tramples on their religious freedom, since you have defined a mere sticker as evidence of religion, they, likewise, could claim unwitnessed transitions from beast to beast are religious dogma.
Double doobie wrong!!
The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.
I also made this statement.
Simple denial of a fact is no justification for concluding religious beliefs.
That seems to have gone over your head.
This is what the sticker states.
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
What religion is it establishing?
By saying evolution is not a fact, it is establishing the peculiar interpretation of the Bible that says that each type of living thing was poofed into existence by God.
I feel that the above religion is not Christian, so I don't know what you want to call it. I don't agree with the establishment idea because that is not Constitutional, so I don't think this decision was right.
The sticker should have never been placed on the textbook because it states a falsehood. Evolution is a fact.
Your post simply highlights this fact stated by yet another another evolutionist:
„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
Nevertheless, you are certainly entilted to your faith. As another evolutionist once stated:
„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
What's more other evolutionist have stated:
„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 "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.
Hell no. If you're claiming to be one of the 10 - 15% of evolutionists who're straight, I've got no reason to think you're lying to me or anything like that.
No it doesn't. It says that evolution is not a fact. Anything other than that, is your supposition.
Like I said, your statement was false. A better man would simply say, "you're right Walsh, the statement was false."
Regardless of the details of incorporation, we're talking about the 1st Amendment here, which even the courts agree were applied to the states by the 14th Amendemnt. So unless you want to contradict both the courts and the man who actually wrote the thing, it is clear the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment applies to the states.
Nothing is ever clear. I posted to you about the Blaine Amendment that failed to pass 8 years after passage of the 14A. You failed to respond on the other thread. 14A is a club the secular left uses to advance its causes, see Roe and Lawrence. The courts never contract onprecedent they expand on it and that expansion unbalances the balance of power. You support that, I don't. That's because I am a conservative and you are something of an ideologue I think. Of course, I could be wrong but there you have it.
Finally, regarding the sticker, it denies all the available empirical data by claiming evolution is not fact. The only reason anyone denies the fact of evolution is because of religious dogma, not science. Therefore, the sticker constitutes the tax-payer funded promotion of religious dogma. If that's not establishing religion, I do not know what is.
The you don't know what is. If A, then B because curiosity says so does not meet any test.
As I said on the other thread, by your logic, the DOI establishes religion and is unConstitutional which makes the entire principle that this country was founded on moot. Rights can not flow from the Creator because to say so establishes religion which is unConstitutional. Marxian logic.
Funny that you should call me a statist. It is you, not me, who wants to use taxpayer money to deny a scientific fact.
Not me curiosity, I don't live in Cobb County. I pay my taxes elsewhere and I am steeped enough in the ways of the founders to know that the best government is closest to the people who pay for it. You on the other hand.....
If you get curiosity to answer you're a better man than I.
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.