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

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

[Dark Knight]

Almost all mutations die very quickly. Showing there is a bunch of mutants that lived, and caused a niche rivalry is another story.

Slow mutational evolution, vs. radical mutational evolution are two interesting but very different mechanisms, wouldn't you say? Their mechanism is important as it relates to transistion, don't you think? Especially for higher animals that require intermingling for reproduction. A genetic modification, that a bacterium could accomplish, is not a sufficient condition for a mammal, that would require another similar mutant, to propagate. That is speciation.

Speciation is the NS approach, and is not robust in examples.

I apologize if it is too much info to handle for very sophisticated intellects to handle.

If you want to be just like every other media elite, claiming to have real truth, good luck, have fun.

Go away.

Don't even bother with the claim to science. You're not there.

DK

[orionblamblam]

> Macro-evolution is a hypothesis based on dead critters.

No, it's backed up by an unbreakable chain of reason AND 200 years of science. There is no other rational way to explain the fossil record and the smooth transitions often seen except via evolution. Appeals to "And then a miracle happened" are no more valid in geology or biology than they would be in explaining why Challenger or Columbia went FOOM.

[Dark Knight]

>>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.<<

Only if antibiotics use the techniques we currently use. A rather dumb assumption, doncha think? Targeted DNA antibiotics will be the rage, if I read ScienceDaily enough. We will even be able to exploit new pathways to kill them.

So you now have an argument that NS can be killed by Intelligent Design, in non evolutionary ways because...

DK

[happydogdesign]

Of course, most mutations are not advantageous, and those that are will still over time eventually lose out to dire environmental factors or competition from other organisms. Does your use of the term "mechanism" imply a purposeful motivated force on what is essentially a random series of events?

[Dark Knight]

Mechanism is just a fancy term for how something is done. NS just says NS or survival of the fittest or some glop term. I want to know, if it is genetics, how does it happen, what particular things happen on the genome and how is it accomplished. If you had to take a real guess about what would happen if the following conditions were made, what would happen?

On most of these threads I have been told to shut up, believe that what can happen to a bacterium is very important to mammals, speciation is important or not important depending on the result, all of which does not lead me to drink at the fountain of NS as the mechanism of evolution.

But the bottom line is I am very happy that unicorn lives.

DK

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Okay.

[happydogdesign]

Proponents of Intelligent Design attempt to put a scientific veneer on unprovable supernatural beliefs. Disparaging proof of Natural Selection does nothing to prove the existence of a creator, omnipotent or otherwise. Random events combined with random mutations determine which organism will be successful in procreation.

In your lawn, there are hundreds of dandelions, each with minor genetic variations resulting from sexual reproduction and random mutation. If you chose not to mow your lawn, those dandelions that grew the tallest would get the most sunlight and have a reproductive advantage over the smaller variety. If you cut the lawn frequently, those weeds that flowered quickly at a shorter height would flourish. If you developed a taste for dandelion greens, you may select those with the most tender leaves. The Great Dane down the street may leave his mark on your yard, so the dandelion that tolerates high urea levels may do best. Your drunken brother-in-law may crash his crop duster on your lawn, a swarm of locusts may strip it bare, or a meteor may convert your yard into a crater. Any event may affect the success of a particular type of dandelion or cause its extinction. Inferrring a supernatural motivation from a random event without a shred of evidence allows any purported cause to have validity, be it aliens, fairies, or Osiris.

Natural Selection simply means constant changes in genetic make up and constant changes in the environment determine which organism will be successful. Termites and humans are both quite successful because both species are capable of altering and exploiting their environment to their advantage, reproduce quickly, and are adaptable over a range of environments. Pandas seem to be having a tougher time of it. However, things can change quickly. Just ask a dinosaur.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yes, Copernicus was once considered a proponent of 'mumbo jumbo' by the experts.

BTW, I'm all for teaching evolution theory, but find the arrogance and insecurity of many of its proponents rather amazing. Especially considering how much of scientific knowledge is accept then discarded in the course of just a lifetime. Like I said, if evolution theory is correct, it will stand on its own in comparison to any other theory. So why the angst at rationally examining other points of view?

[spunkets]

Dude, it's CA! If they asked their opinion about teaching the thoughts of dirt worshipers, buddists and witches, they'd have them teaching that too.

[spunkets]

"Do photons exist in California?"

Yes, they are worshiped there. Pions exist too, but they're illegal.

[happydogdesign]

The consternation is due to the lack of any credible evidence for any theory other than evolution.

[NewLand]

Just Enjoying Science Under Scrutiny

[Dark Knight]

>.Natural Selection simply means constant changes in genetic make up and constant changes in the environment determine which organism will be successful. Termites and humans are both quite successful because both species are capable of altering and exploiting their environment to their advantage, reproduce quickly, and are adaptable over a range of environments. Pandas seem to be having a tougher time of it. However, things can change quickly. Just ask a dinosaur.<<

Then NS is a crappy definition of evolution and will be undone by a rigorous genetic one. By Geneticists, not crappy biologists.

DK

I'm not a ID fanatic btw. I'm stictly don't care which is better. Better is better.

DK

[orionblamblam]

> Copernicus was once considered a proponent of 'mumbo jumbo' by the experts.

As was Darwin. However, the passage of time have shown them both to be correct on the basics, even if some of the detaisl were wrong or lacking.

> Especially considering how much of scientific knowledge is
accept then discarded in the course of just a lifetime.

That's called "Science." Unliek "religion," where the patently incorrect and silly are kept due to dogma. Just another area where evolution trumps Creationism... evolution changes to fit new data. Creationism has to misrepresent data.

[happydogdesign]

"Then NS is a crappy definition of evolution and will be undone by a rigorous genetic one. By Geneticists, not crappy biologists."

Perhaps overnight you can come up with a coherent explanation of this somewhat addled statement, but for now, Morpheus beckons.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Only the narrow view of Creationism you chose to highlight so as to scorn. Plenty of people believe in the Creation, without believing in literal 24 hour days. Many believe that most of evolution theory can fit within the Creation account (though perhaps some missing links are missing for a reason.) So who is misrepresenting whom?

But of course its much easier to portray anyone who disagrees with you as a dogmatic ignorant redneck, than to try and see if there is any overlap or common ground that might lead to a reshaping of theories taken as (secular) gospel...

[DallasMike]

What purpose for the appendix? Or the useless genetic "junk" in the human genome? Or nipples on men?

The appendix is no longer thought to be useless.

Nipples are developed in fetuses before the sex hormones kick in and thus are a feature of all humans, not just women. The gland that produces milk is present in men but is undeveloped unless it is stimulated by estrogen. That's why it's never a good idea to take your wife's hormone pills.

As for the "useless junk" in the human genome, it's my understanding that as time goes by, more and more pieces in the genome are found to have actual function.

[dangus]

>>>>Intelligent Design... it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.<<<<

>>Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.

An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well. <<

Oh, I totally agree

[microgood]

http://www.dinofish.com


Well maybe not unbreakable.

[orionblamblam]

> Many believe that most of evolution theory can fit within the Creation account

These are not the peopel under discussion. They believe in evolution; they just believe it was God-directed or God-initiated. They are nevertheless evolutionists.

> So who is misrepresenting whom?

It appears that you are.