Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 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!


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1youreanidiot; 2noyoureanidiot; allcapitalletters; anncoulter; anothercrevothread; evolution; flailaway; godless; hurltheinsults; nutherpointlessthred; pavlovian; picsplease; royalwasteoftime; sameposterseachtime; thesamearguments; thnx4allcaps; uselessdiscussion; wasteofbandwidth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 701-713 next last
To: From many - one.
So all of the research "Scientist" who develop new medicines, and microelectronics aren't real scientist; their really just technologist? The MRI was just a machine that used the technology of electro magnetics. The scientist who are currently working on the RAM Jet engine are just using technology which hasn't existed until they invented it but they're not real scientist, they're just technologist.

I guess your only a real scientist if you deal with theories that take billions and billions of years to prove. You see something in nature or the Cosmo's that regular people can't explain, so you develop a theory that explains it. Over the years you refine that theory because of the bugs found in the first one and it can change form year to year until you get the majority of your fellow "thinkers" to agree with your theory and low and behold ..... your a Real Scientist!!

All these year I thought that working with new discoveries and inventing things that we never used or existed before were the results of the applied sciences by scientist who were making lives better, people live longer and with greater comfort. Who knew that they were just technologist.
341 posted on 06/28/2006 5:28:31 AM PDT by Russ_in_NC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It would be better stated that there are no positive, new information-added mutations

Why do you keep saying this? Please see the pop quiz in my profile. If you are unable to answer it, please go read a book on advanced genetics before regurgitating this again.

342 posted on 06/28/2006 5:28:42 AM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
From everything I've read, every time the evolutionist come up with the so call "Missing Link" it has been latter proven to be false.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Here's a list of transitionals. Two notable ones are Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik--a lizard with feathers and wings and a fish with legs.

343 posted on 06/28/2006 5:32:42 AM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

There is no more evidence that any species originated from the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials.


344 posted on 06/28/2006 5:32:57 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Another superbly reasoned assault on the underpinnings of evolution. This time it's "adaptation" under the gun:

If human beings are well adapted to their environment, then their ancestors were certainly well adapted to their environment, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first proto-humans.

However, those ancestors didn't seem to survive. Instead, they went extinct.

Our ancestors went extinct? Who? So, we're not really here? Hmmmm? Hello?

They adapted and we're here.

345 posted on 06/28/2006 5:37:28 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
. . . lo and behold ..... your a Real Scientist!!

Science has determined that all it takes to become a real scientist is to substitute the word "nature" for "God." Science has also determined this is the only legal way to speak of science in public schools.

346 posted on 06/28/2006 5:37:57 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC

pixie theory of aerodynamics placemaker


347 posted on 06/28/2006 5:40:33 AM PDT by thomaswest (One man's clarity is another man's misinterpretation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
All these year I thought that working with new discoveries and inventing things that we never used or existed before were the results of the applied sciences by scientist who were making lives better, people live longer and with greater comfort. Who knew that they were just technologist.

One evolutionist Bozo tried to tell me a physician is not qualified as a biological scientist. Horse hockey... Any physician or veterinarian is just as qualified to comment on biology, probably even more so.

348 posted on 06/28/2006 5:45:19 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC; atlaw

I knew it! I was about to guess engineer and then I checked replies and there it was.

So far all of the anti-evolutionist scientists I've run across have been engineers.


349 posted on 06/28/2006 5:49:20 AM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
Have you heard about the Salem hypothesis?
350 posted on 06/28/2006 5:53:46 AM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I was making a head on attack on the concept of "adapt". If human beings are well adapted to their environment, then their ancestors were certainly well adapted to their environment, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first proto-humans.

However, those ancestors didn't seem to survive. Instead, they went extinct.

Interesting article: "Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model." Mellars, Paul. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 2006, 103, 9381-9386.

Recent research has provided increasing support for the origins of anatomically and genetically "modern" human populations in Africa between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, followed by a major dispersal of these populations to both Asia and Europe sometime after ca. 65,000 before present (B.P.). However, the central question of why it took these populations 100,000 years to disperse from Africa to other regions of the world has never been clearly resolved. It is suggested here that the answer may lie partly in the results of recent DNA studies of present-day African populations, combined with a spate of new archaeological discoveries in Africa. Studies of both the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mismatch patterns in modern African populations and related mtDNA lineage-analysis patterns point to a major demographic expansion centered broadly within the time range from 80,000 to 60,000 B.P., probably deriving from a small geographical region of Africa. Recent archaeological discoveries in southern and eastern Africa suggest that, at approximately the same time, there was a major increase in the complexity of the technological, economic, social, and cognitive behavior of certain African groups, which could have led to a major demographic expansion of these groups in competition with other, adjacent groups. It is suggested that this complex of behavioral changes (possibly triggered by the rapid environmental changes around the transition from oxygen isotope stage 5 to stage 4) could have led not only to the expansion of the L2 and L3 mitochondrial lineages over the whole of Africa but also to the ensuing dispersal of these modern populations over most regions of Asia, Australasia, and Europe, and their replacement (with or without interbreeding) of the preceding "archaic" populations in these regions.

Environments change. When they do, the organisms in them adapt, migrate, or die.

351 posted on 06/28/2006 6:02:33 AM PDT by ahayes ("If intelligent design evolved from creationism, then why are there still creationists?"--Quark2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: HayekRocks; atlaw; ahayes; Russ_in_NC

Gads!

After reading his/her post #341, I don't "buy" into engineering either.

I do not see anyone completing a degree in engineering with such poor writing skills.

Russ? - You might think about demanding a refund on you education. Because you damn sure deserve one!


352 posted on 06/28/2006 6:02:39 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
Actually, you made ACs point.

Hmmm, let's see. It's been demonstrated on this thread that Ann either doesn't know what she's talking about wrt the Theory of Evolution, or she's lying. I state that she's so bad on the TOE, that I have no confidence in anything she writes on the subject, specifically the story about the biology teacher. To you, this somehow proves one of her points.

Was one of her points that she has no credibility on the subject?

353 posted on 06/28/2006 6:04:25 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
All these year I thought that working with new discoveries and inventing things that we never used or existed before were the results of the applied sciences by scientist who were making lives better, people live longer and with greater comfort. Who knew that they were just technologist.

There's no "just" about being a technologist. There isn't a pecking order of this stuff. But yes, most invention and applied science and making lives better and people live longer and in greater comfort is done by engineers or inventors. Not scientists. Engineers and inventors apply the theories that scientists have discovered (or sometimes just use their gut knowledge in clever and unexpected ways). Sometimes scientific theories turn out to be wrong in subtle ways, and the scientists refine them, which can lead to new applications from the technologists and engineers. Me, I'm an engineer, which is of course a much higher calling than being a scientist.

354 posted on 06/28/2006 6:06:10 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; zebra 2
Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)

I rate Coulter at the same level as Michael Moore.

355 posted on 06/28/2006 6:07:23 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
"THEORIES" only become "PROOFS" when they are supported by the facts.

Can you provide any examples of "THEORIES" that have become "PROOFS"?

356 posted on 06/28/2006 6:08:06 AM PDT by Condorman (Prefer infinitely the company of those seeking the truth to those who believe they have found it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait"

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

You wrote:
"You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it"

I've only read two or three books on evolution. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

you wrote:"(I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)"

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

So your right, I'm wrong. I'm not a real scientist because I deal in theories that have proof through practical applications. As another poster put it, and I'll phrase it based upon they're definition, I'm just a technologist. Using magnetics to see inside the human body, that's not real science, that was just technology. Never mind that someone had to develop a theory about how magnetics works and how the human body is effected by it. never mind they then had to perform experiments to see if their theory could be put into practical application for the benefit of all mankind. No those aren't real scientist, they're just technicians.
357 posted on 06/28/2006 6:08:48 AM PDT by Russ_in_NC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; Russ_in_NC
I do not see anyone completing a degree in engineering with such poor writing skills. Russ? - You might think about demanding a refund on you education. Because you damn sure deserve one!

I bit my tongue on making exactly the same comment. I decided that Russ's constant grammatical and spelling errors must result from English not being his first language, and on that basis it would be unfair to call him on them. It is inconceivable to me that a native English speaker with the benefit of higher education could have such poor writing skills.

358 posted on 06/28/2006 6:09:28 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere?

You are wrong. Evolution describes the changes of life, not the beginning.

359 posted on 06/28/2006 6:10:04 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Thanks. You put it better than I did.

My not having personally encountered God does not constitute evidence that God does not exist.

I have not personally been to South America, but that is not evidence that it isn't there.


360 posted on 06/28/2006 6:10:29 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 701-713 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson