Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[gobucks]

ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.

With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.

*snip*

The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.

*snip*

At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.

*snip*

The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."

*snip*

Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."

*snip*

Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.

"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"

[Dimensio]

So are you claiming that whales have evolved into a higher organism than those that have vestigial hips and legs?

Whales certainly do better in their environment than mammals with hips and legs.

Will we some day become whales?

Why would anyone expect this?

[Dimensio]

What possible role would the aspects of any particular person's life have in the formation of a scientific theory?

Actually, personal biases could hypothetically affect a person's interpretation of evidence. In this case, however, gobucks is making a dishonest argument in trying to assert that Darwin's theories were influenced by an event that occured fifteen years after he forumlated said theories.

[Rudder]

So are you claiming that whales have evolved into a higher organism than those that have vestigial hips and legs? Will we some day become whales?

No wonder this thread is ponderous! Can't you read without twisting things ass backwards?

[Oztrich Boy]

The 'Origin of the Species' should be retitled to the 'Origin of the Amoralists'

"I don't knows whats it is but I'm agin it!"

Learn the real title before you to try play with the big kids.

[FastCoyote]

I'm saying there is a whole fossil record of animals preceding the whale who demonstrate diminishing limb structures. You screwed up on the second law interpretation, here is another example of where you are myopic.

At some point, your strict anti-evolutionist interpretation of the world will crack and fail. I'd like to suggest to you that this should not affect your faith in God at all, that there are mixtures of creationism and evolution that coexist quite easily. But you will have to open your eyes to understand the bigger picture, and that will be disturbing to say the least.

[jwalsh07]

All very nice but the principle upon which this nation is founded is quite different and that principle is that rights are inalienable and granted by God, not the state, not human nature and certainly not any Universal Declaration.

And moreover that principle is not a historical principle but it is one that should be taught in civics classes.

[AntiGuv]

If God is an invention of humanity then anything attributed to God is also an invention of humanity.

[FastCoyote]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

That's a link to a discussion of the vestigial pelvic girdle in the modern humback whale. I will look for earlier fossil pics with more developed systems.

[LionsDaughter]

I didn't say that the Jews didn't know about dinosaurs. I said dinosaurs didn't impact history enough to be included in the Bible with any frequency. I also don't see any mention of "all sorts of animals local to the Mideast that boarded Noah's Ark" and I'm looking at Genesis right now. In fact, no specific animals from anywhere are listed. It says "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock that moves along the ground, according to its kind, and every bird according to its kind."

So obviously, they didn't think it was important to list those animals.

And you say mylogic is bad?

[FastCoyote]

From another source:

[What, then, does the fossil record reveal? Early whales, as exemplified by Ambulocetus natans, show well-formed fully functional hind legs. Two other whales--Indocetus ramani and Rodhocetus kasrani--appear later in the fossil record and show diminished although still perfectly functional hind limbs. Basilosaurus isis, finally, had very tiny hind limbs the utility of which is unknown. In the case of Rodhocetus, at least, where the pelvis is well-preserved, there can be no doubt but that the legs were attached to the pelvic girdle and that they were functional. As P. Gingerich et al note in their analysis of the fossil whale, "The pelvis of Rodhocetus articulates with the vertebral column by normal mammalian sacral synarthroses, meaning that Rhodocetus could support its body weight on land." ("New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming," Nature 368, 1994, p. 847). ]

[From many - one.]

Fungi aren't listed at all.

[NDGG]

Actually, I'm not anti-evolution, but do believe that God created this universe for a purpose. From the literature that I have read (both in public school and on my own), I can only come to one conclusion.....creation seems more rational.....more believable and seems to take less faith. As I stated in previous posts, everything that I have read about Darwin seems to contradict itself in the end (especially his own experiments with pigeons and fruit flys).
I also recently read that the moth experiment was absolute bogus (this has always been a halmark of the evolutionist agend). The photo, of this touted classic illustration of natural selection, was found to be faked (the photo of the white moth against the soot colored tree). In fact, the article went on to say that the pepered moths fly about in the upper branches of the trees and don't perch on the trunks at all. In fact, Theodore Sargent of the University of Mass. admitted that he glued dead samples of the moths onto the tree trunks for a NOVA documentary. The respected journal Nature says the moth example, once the "prize horse in our stable" to illustrate evolution by natural selection must be thrown out.

[balrog666]

Well, we can fix that. I'm pro-life and think Roe v Wade should get overturned.

Me too. I'm pro-choice and think Roe v Wade should get overturned.

[AntiGuv]

Hmm.. A slight clarification: If the concept of God is an invention of humanity then any concept attributed to God is also an invention of humanity.

[LionsDaughter]

And as an addendum, the flood was waaay before Abraham who is generally credited as the Grand Patriarch of the Jewish people.

[gobucks]

That post was the very first time I had heard about Annie.

My comments since then refer to the fact that after all these years, my 'exposure' to evolution is one that has been quite controlled. The parts that are nice, those get published and put out.

The stuff that is not convenient to Darwinists, it is omitted from the discussion. My point is this: why is it only on FreeRepublic that I learned about this stuff? Why is it that the shaded deliverance of evolution is tolerated?

[LionsDaughter]

Well, the same passage says later that "everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." Fungi don't really breathe the same way people or animals breathe and a great many varieties survive quite well underwater. Sea Grapes, for example...which are really fun to squish, by the way.

[FastCoyote]

Well, let me suggest the second law does not exclude evolution, but neither does it exclude the existence of "greater" entities than ourselves. The difference between creation and evolution also becomes confused once you start looking at string theory a physical causality.

[balrog666]

The anthropic principle states that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what is needed to sustain life

Our form of life. Do you know what forms might arise in other universes with different physical laws?

(any closer to the sun and we would burn and any farther away and we would freeze).

Oooooh, a swing and a miss!

Do you believe that all the intricacies of the universe are just the result of happen-stance?

Would you believe I just happened to pick up this Grand Slam bridge hand!

[From many - one.]

No, my question refers to Creation. When were fungi created?