Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[ChevyZ28]

this definition still does not change the fact that the theory of evolution has not been proven. There is not a single person anywhere on Earth who can conclusively say evolution is a fact. For there is as much evidence against it as there is for it. we should change the title for the theroy of evolution to the lie of evolution.

I do understand what a theory is by the way. I hold a degree in electronics. The field of electronics is based almost entirely on theories.

[Dark Knight]

Jeez, I love big words. You have encapsulated the reason why NS is not ready for prime time. Everyone can see it, can't you? Prediction is a cornerstone for scientific theory. NS is devoid of consistent prediction. That should give you a clue about it's scientific nature.

Unlike you, I know where evolution is going to be based. Genetics. It really is an uh duh, type scientific question. Mechanism is so important in a theory. NS is weak in mechanism. And prediction. NS is weak in two cornerstones of the scientific method. There aren't that many cornerstones in the scientific method.

I apologize for bringing up basic science, but someone has to. You haven't. And don't even think about shooting that unicorn.

DK

LOL

[PatrickHenry]

But it is still possible that we all had basically the same design but were created at the same time.

If everything were created at the same time, we would find: (a) all fossils would have the same age, but they don't; and (b) all geological rock strata would contain pretty much every variety of living thing, but they don't.

And the only way they can prove the point is from a lot of historically dug up stuff, a totally different place from where the evidence of microevolution comes from, transitional species, seawater hogs, timelines, etc.

Yeah, so? That's the evidence we have. Do you suggest that it should be ignored?

[DallasMike]

As undergraduates, we took cultures of bacteria, exposed them to mutagens, and plated them out in the presence of penicillin, and presto! We isolated cultures of penicillin-resistant bacteria.

No one, I think, denies natural selection. When you can turn a bacterium into a kangaroo, we promise to be a little bit more impressed. Out of the hundreds of breeds of dogs that have been bred over thousands of years, all of them are still dogs and all are still capable of interbreeding with each other and with wolves.

[Right Wing Professor]

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

You mean like Newton saw an apple fall, and inferred the motion of the planets was a result of gravitation?

RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS?

I'm presuming you mean evolution here. A NS prediction will be that any new antiobiotic will eventually result in a mutant population of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic.

An evolutionary prediction: the chimpanzee genome will be published this summer. I haven't seen it yet. Most genes will be very close in sequence to human genes; a fair number will be identical; very few will be closer to non-primate genes than human genes, and none will be closer to invertebrate genes than human genes. There will also be no more similarities to furry medium sized animals than can be expected from their phylogenies, despite any superficial similarities of niche or appearance. There will be a close relationship between the layouts of the genes on the chromosomes of humans and chimps, barring one break of a single chromosome into two.

That enough? You want some predictions about other soon-to-be-sequenced genomes?

[Right Wing Professor]

The poll was whether evidence contradicting evolutionary theory ought to be presented in science classes.

There are none such. There is evolutiuon, and a trojan horse for relgion called 'intelligent design'.

Real scientists shouldn't have a problem informing students about some of the problems with current evolutionary thinking.

When I find some, I will. For example, I do inform them of the speculative nature of theories of abiogenesis. But evolution; sorry; it's as robust a theory as any.

[DallasMike]

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

Well said. I would argue that the diehard proponents of current evolutionary theory do much more harm to science than 10 times as many early earth creationists could ever dream of doing. It's insane to teach that there are no problems with the current theory of evolution. That's indoctrination, not science.

[Right Wing Professor]

I've heard of the penicillin experiment, and IIRC there was a minor rearrangment of DNA that resulted in the resistance, not a fundamentally different form of life. You said 'natural selection'. I gave you an example of natural selection. Learn what the terms you use mean

You'll have to excuse my rudeness earlier, I did not realize I was talking to a bacterium god.

On the other hand, I had a fair idea I was talking to someone who was discussing concepts he didn't understand.

[ChevyZ28]

I agree with you, and what you said. I, of course, hold to the belief that we are created by a loving God. The Bible says He did it in 7 days. However, I would not begin to argue with anyone what even a day is too God. I can't, you can't, no one can. The reason being is we were not there.
I can not accept we just formed out of a single celled organism starting billions of years ago.

Evolution will never be proved conclusively, because it is based on ideas and concepts in which there just simply is no way to prove through a scientific method. People say because we have similarities with apes, we must have evolved with apes. How ridiculous a claim!!! I have always said, and will always say if evolution is real we should be able to find examples in various forms of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists would argue we are all evolving, it is just so slow we can't see it physically. I say it doesn't matter how slow it is, we should still see evidence of evolution in someone or some animal by virtue of the fact is every living thing is of different ages. An 80 year old woman for example, should have some measureable evolved difference as opposed to me, being a 32 year old man. This whole evolutionary claim is absurd, IMHO.

[happydogdesign]

Red Herring theater- Natural Selection means that random genetic changes over time are occasionally advantageous enough for an organism to become more efficient at passing on its genetic material

[Right Wing Professor]

No one, I think, denies natural selection.

Wrong-o. Try this . Or this.

Maybe you should be arguing with those gentlemen?

[orionblamblam]

> If I read your post correctly, you said that the "imperfect" traits were either bred out
OR killed the "host." In light of this, the self-contradiction is even more embarrassing.

It was minor-league poor wordsmithing on my part. There is no contradiction.

A useless thing would be bred out of existence through natural evolution if it was detrimental. If it wasn't, maybe it woudl go, maybe it woudl stay. But if there was Divien Creation, there would be no useless thigns to begin with.

This is Self Evident.

> The simple fact that we are imperfect validates the existence of a superior being, does it not?

Uhhh... NO. It's garbage like this that makes no one take you seriously. That and your wacky attempt to compare pictures of Darwin and Marx. LAME, and intellectually dishonest.

[happydogdesign]

"There is not a single person anywhere on Earth who can conclusively say evolution is a fact."

Things change
There- I just conclusively said evolution is a fact, and I happen to be somewhere on Earth

[Dark Knight]

Gee RWP,
I heard a clone had a different fur color than it's clone donee.

Genetics is where real science is, as far as biology is concerned.

>>I'm presuming you mean evolution here. A NS prediction will be that any new antiobiotic will eventually result in a mutant population of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic. <<
Which antibiotic and why? What is the mechanism? Crappy and undefined prediction yields crappy and undefined results.

>>An evolutionary prediction: the chimpanzee genome will be published this summer. I haven't seen it yet. Most genes will be very close in sequence to human genes; a fair number will be identical; very few will be closer to non-primate genes than human genes, and none will be closer to invertebrate genes than human genes. There will also be no more similarities to furry medium sized animals than can be expected from their phylogenies, despite any superficial similarities of niche or appearance. There will be a close relationship between the layouts of the genes on the chromosomes of humans and chimps, barring one break of a single chromosome into two. <<

Which genes and why? What are the functions of those genes that you are predicting and why are you predicting them in particular?

I am very glad you are retreating into the genetic science part of biology. After all, I have been very clear, that I "believe" genetics will be the science that really explains evolution. Not NS.

Hail the god of Bacteria!!!
DK

[orionblamblam]

> why on earth would you be afraid to have both sides presented?

What do you mean "both"? Evolution is the scientifically established explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. if, however, you feel the need to include alternate explanations... start with the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths. Don't forget the Hindu versions, the Norse version, the World Ice Theory, hollow Earth, the Raelian version, the Scientologist version, etc.

There are not two "sides." There is the rational view... and then there's the mumbo jumbo.

[ChevyZ28]

You are not funny, LOL. I say as I laugh.

[orionblamblam]

>>Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution.

>If this is the case, why teach it at all in the schools?

That makes no sense. Greek lit has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Why teach it in school?

[orionblamblam]

> then there are probably 30,000 who are skeptical

What are you basing that on? References, please.

[microgood]

If everything were created at the same time, we would find: (a) all fossils would have the same age, but they don't; and (b) all geological rock strata would contain pretty much every variety of living thing, but they don't.

This assumes our age calcs are good and that we have enough data points. They find new bones all the time and have to readjust their previous theories about what happened when. I am waiting for them to find a man in the same strata as a dinosaur. That will really shake them up (they would probably destroy that find).

I do not think what these scientists are doing is wrong in studying this stuff, but their conclusions seem to be greater than the evidence, and since there is no urgent necessity to believe that common ancestry is the fact of evolution, they need to do more digging and less preaching.

[microgood]

That makes no sense. Greek lit has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Why teach it in school?

I would compare micro-evolution to science and have no problem teaching it. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is closer to astrology than aerodynamics. Aerodynamics can be proven in a lab experiment. Macro-evolution is a hypothesis based on dead critters.