MY SECOND ANN COULTER THREAD - EVOLUTION DISCUSSION (or Here We Go Again)

[7thson]

Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -

Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.

On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:

1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)

2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)

3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)

My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?

On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!

[MEGoody]

It's not a political issue.

Obviously, that's an opinion not shared by some.

Worst of all, they give conservatism a black eye amoung educated biased people of all political stripes.had to fix that. Your bias is shown by your implication that anyone who is educated is going to believe in evolution. You know that isn't the case, but you won't admit that publicly.

[DungeonMaster]

Is information unnatural or "supernatural?"

To evolution everything is natural.

[DungeonMaster]

You are speaking of a mental construct, a thought, an insubstantive and unmeasurable quanta of "nothingness" ~ ergo, something that cannot really be differentiated (in an objective way) from the supernatural!

What? The water cycle can't be differentiated from the supernatural? So it might be that there are little fairies riding the drops of water down and not natural laws of physics involved?

[Russ_in_NC]

uhhhhh ...... that was my point! It's a theory. No proof.

Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. (A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something') They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts.

I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period. Every so call "fact" supporting evolution relies on the viewer/reviewer to infer the result, not very good scientific practice.

[7thson]

I think you just hit on what AC is stating. It is a theory but - and her argument is that this is based on teaching in the public schools - it is taught as fact and there can not be any argument or discussion against it.

[7thson]

I do not think it is that hard of a question. Just state the theory.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Certainly much of what we call "random" is just an acknowledgment that we don't know all of the relevant information

During the 19th century this is what we thought. It is an implication from what we now call "classical" Newtonian physics (i.e. particles in motion).

But at the turn of the century when we began to understand the world of the "quanta" the "classical" world was turned upside down. Eienstein, who was a Newtonian, famously said "God does not play dice with the universe". But he was apparently wrong.

Newtonian physics implied that the universe is determinate. And the science of statistics and probability were developed for purposes of understanding and predicting processes only because we hadn't the understanding/knowledge and/or computing power to perform the predictions. With the implication being that if we did have that knowledge/power we could predict everything without the need of statistics/probability theory.

Quantum theory implies that fundamental particles are indeterminate in principal with no way of predicting behavior without recourse to statistics regardless of your knowledge and computing power. Very unsettling idea to many.

From a purely scientific naturalistic perspective the universe is indeterminate. And couldn't exist otherwise. From a theistic perspective (i.e. the universe is a subset of something greater), it may be deterministic. IMO.

[Fester Chugabrew]

How is it that a scientist, "and a pretty good one" isn't aware that there is never proof of a scientific theory?

How is it that a logical human being, and a pretty good one like yourself, does not understand that where there is no proof there is faith?

[Gumlegs]

Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. (A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something') They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts.

Facts in and of themselves prove nothing. In the absence of a theory linking them, facts are quite meaningless.

Your statement, "A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something,'is nonsense. You've merely stated that a proof is a type evidence. That's wrong.

"They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts." What is the antecedent for "they" in your last sentence? The context implies it's "theories," which would mean you're contradicting yourself. The only thing that is clear in your first paragraph is that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period.

In that, you would appear to be like the Senate Democrats who saw no evidence of Bill Clinton's perjury.

Every so call[sic] "fact" supporting evolution relies on the viewer/reviewer to infer the result, not very good scientific practice.

Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist.

[Gumlegs]

I think you just hit on what AC is stating. It is a theory

No, that's not what Coulter is stating. Go back and read the quotes of hers you posted to start this thread.

but - and her argument is that this is based on teaching in the public schools -

??

it is taught as fact and there can not be any argument or discussion against it.

Oh, please. The Theory of Evolution is taught as "The Theory of Evolution," which is to say, it's taught as a "theory." I have a pretty good grasp of this because my son studied it this past year in his high school biology class, and the year before that in eighth grade. I helped him study it.

The TOE is the scientific theory that covers all the known facts. Please note qualifer: "scientific."

In science class, if there is a scientific argument against a theory, or competing theories, that should be covered. No one questions this. I can recall -- dimly -- when I was in school learning competing theories about the nature light. At present, however, there is no scientific theory competing with the Theory of Evolution.

If you think ID is a scientific theory, please state how one would go about disproving it.

[Gumlegs]

Let's keep it down to the fewest possible words:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

[Gumlegs]

How is it that a logical human being, and a pretty good one like yourself, does not understand that where there is no proof there is faith?

That's a false dichotomy: although scientific theories are never proved, they also never operate on faith.

[Russ_in_NC]

Please read Websters New World Compact Dictionary, page 363, bottom right side of the page.

Proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something" It's the 1st definition of the word and copied verbatim. If you disagree, perhaps you should write Webster and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps before you accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about you should look up their proofs/definitions before you prove to everyone else reading your response that the exact opposite is true.

you wrote: "Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist." So the 26 years I've been working in the scientific field and being rewarded for those efforts, with several outstanding contribution awards, were all a fraud simply because you don't know the real definition of the word proof? Stop the presses, "Gumlegs" says anyone who require proof is not a real scientists.

I ask you for facts and like all evolutionist you answer the request by trying to divert the argument. For your small weak mind, the Clinton Democrats "IGNORED" facts. Evolutionist, such as yourself, rely on theories not facts. So let's stop and get off the personal attacks and actually get back to the point at hand and my original post.

Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution. Not something that can be inferred, fact. If its just a theory (as all the information available today so states) then the schools and evolutionist should stop referring to it as fact and call it a theory. It as plain and simple as that.

[7thson]

Please reread pages 222-224 of ACs book, especially 224. Why was the biology teacher fired? Why are you throwing ID at me? Have I mentioned ID?

[7thson]

Is that Darwin's original theory or is that what it is now? What did Darwin originally state?

[Coyoteman]

Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution.

Here is a fact or data point; evidence. It supports the theoretical chart which follows at the bottom of this post.

This approach is well described by Heinlein:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

Now you may not believe it for religious reasons, but that won't make it go away.

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[blowfish]

Anne Coulter pontificating on biology, geology or palentology is like Francis Crick pontificating about Supreme Court decisions. Smart people who don't particularly know what they're talking about. In Anne's case, it's all about book sales.

[atlaw]

Is that Darwin's original theory or is that what it is now? What did Darwin originally state?

What difference does it make?

[Russ_in_NC]

Looking up your "Proof" which isn't proof at all but once again a inference .... using their own words, last line
"probable ancestor". Their is no proof, never has been. You accept on faith the theories you are being presented. If you can show one successful lab experiment showing evolution I could accept your conclusions but those experiments don't exist. Evolutionist protect themselves and their beliefs by stating that evolution takes millions of years to occur but then their are others that state massive changes occur spontaneously. Which is correct? Even evolutionist can't get it right.


Description of find is verbatim below:
By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations

[atlaw]

"Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. (A proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something') They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts."

What the devil does this mean? As far I can tell, you're saying the following --

"Theories can be supported by evidence. That doesn't mean that they are evidence. They only become evidence when they are proven by the evidence"

-- which is gibberish.

Maybe you'd care to explain.