Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why the breakdown based on race if it's supposed to be by religious groups?
That's a fair question, twin.spin, particularly considering that we do not know what percentage of the whole religious group each subgroup represents. I would assume that this information is given in the full report.
Because even the most cursory glance at the chart indicates huge differences within the religious groups based on race.
I saw it as more based on religious view. US protestants were far more inclined to take Genesis as literally true than Catholics who, as stated, have been taught that Genesis is more symbolic, if not metaphorical.
I would certainly trace this effect back to the resurgence of religion in the confederacy when the war turned against them, and culminated in the 'Monkey trial' when rejection of Darwinism in favour of Genesis as literal fact became identified as an article of faith.
I'm not going to argue the toss here. The evolution debate has been done to death, and will probably be disinterred and kicked around a lot more. The facts are there for anyone who wants to look, as distinct from providing links to a few scientists who dissent from Darwin and blandly claiming that science and evidence disproved evolution. (It didn't, last time I looked ) I'm just saying that it is a US protestant thing, and not a race thing.
I would observe that the Muslims seem to have clambered on the creationist bandwagon.
I would suggest you watch these videos and try to understand them.
To summarize the Law of Monophyletic Variation as stated in the latter video:
'Evolution never permits one thing to 'turn-into' another thing that is fundamentally different. All evolution is just a matter of incremental superficial changes being slowly compiled atop various tiers of fundamental similarities. Thus every new species, genus, or higher taxa that ever evolved was just a modification of whatever its ancestors were. And these successive levels of similarity represent taxonomic clades which will forever encompass all the descendents of that clade no matter how differently they eventually become.'
Sharing is caring...I would suggest reading scientific articles published in peered reviewed scientific journals rather than relying on YouTube (although I find YouTube has some really funny and interesting stuff but I digress). Please try to understand the below...
BTW I am not a young earth creationists which IMO is not compatible with the Bible
I do subscribe to the idea that a Creator created life and that a rich variation can occur within a "kind." This would not be incompatible with what we can actually observe and study in nature...life adapts.
And that man misapplying what is found in the Bible and what it teaches about God has led to the modern day assertion by many that to believe in a Creator/religion,etc is incompatible with science and/or hinders scientific achievement.
One can throw out terms like clades, taxa, monophyletic variation etc but at the fundamental core of macroevolution is this...genetic mutations and random selection is the all encompassing explanation of the origin of all species including the categories of all plants and animals as those occuring at the higher branches/twigs of the evolutionary tree. Yet real life science experiments are confounding such a view.
01-04-2014, 12:09 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Sharing is caring...I would suggest reading scientific articles published in peered reviewed scientific journals rather than relying on YouTube (although I find YouTube has some really funny and interesting stuff but I digress). Please try to understand the below...
Thanks, but those did not overturn anything that I posted nor do they suggest that 'macro-evolution' does not or cannot occur. As the first article suggested there was three possible reasons why certain types of alleles did not fix with in the populations over the short term life histories.
Furthermore, for you to think that scientific peered reviewed articles do not hold to macro-evolution or that the authors of those articles do not as well - is funny. There are loads of data and observations that speak to macro-evolution that the video touched on and spoke of that you or anyone else has not answered.
Quote:
BTW I am not a young earth creationists which IMO is not compatible with the Bible
I do subscribe to the idea that a Creator created life and that a rich variation can occur within a "kind." This would not be incompatible with what we can actually observe and study in nature...life adapts.
None of those articles showed that a creator was needed
Speaking of 'Kind' - why don't you rigorously (scientifically) define that for us since you are so much into the scientific method. Adaptation is just another word for evolution. What adaptive mechanisms and boundaries are you suggesting cannot be crossed? Explain this scientifically please. Don't forget to be consistent with your terms.
Quote:
And that man misapplying what is found in the Bible and what it teaches about God has led to the modern day assertion by many that to believe in a Creator/religion,etc is incompatible with science and/or hinders scientific achievement.
Irrelevant to my post.
Quote:
One can throw out terms like clades, taxa, monophyletic variation etc but at the fundamental core of macroevolution is this...genetic mutations and random selection is the all encompassing explanation of the origin of all species including the categories of all plants and animals as those occuring at the higher branches/twigs of the evolutionary tree. Yet real life science experiments are confounding such a view.
No, science experiments are clarify the lines that lead to the explanation of how this happened which is obvious from other areas of study - we see this in genetics and the fossil record for example. Once again your articles did nothing of the sort - they merely tested certain concepts about such alleles becoming fixed in short term life histories.
Sharing is caring...I would suggest reading scientific articles published in peered reviewed scientific journals rather than relying on YouTube (although I find YouTube has some really funny and interesting stuff but I digress). Please try to understand the below...
Thanks, but those did not overturn anything that I posted nor do they suggest that 'macro-evolution' does not or cannot occur. As the first article suggested there was three possible reasons why certain types of alleles did not fix with in the populations over the [u][i]short term life histories.
You mean the first article that was a 35 year experiment under ideal lab conditions exploring the limits of natural selection by attempting to force selection on fruit flies (essentially trying to get them to evolve). After 600 generations of fruit flies the investigators observed only minor changes to the fruit flies. The conclusion noted that success is even less likely to occur in the wild.
Did they find evidence that a beneficial mutation became fixed in the population?
Despite observing plenty of mutations weren't the fruit flies resistant to change?
Didn't they postulate that any beneficial mutation was essentially cancelled out by linkage to detrimental alleles? Or that one good mutation to a gene could cause bad effects elsewhere?
Mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, right?
Macroevolution is dependent on random changes in the genetic code to not only yield new species but new families of plants and animals
However, the second article by the Geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany which summarizes decades of research and the outlay of substantial amounts of money indicates the following:
“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. "
"“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Quote:
None of those articles showed that a creator was needed
True but the burden of proof is on you (Evolution minded) to show how random mutation and natural selection would be capable of producing the variety of species we have today and which have existed in the past.Evolution claims to provide the answer by the above mechanisms so the burden of proof would be met by observation, repetition or demonstration of the event. Fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria are still bacteria. Evolutionary thinking requires observation, repetition and demonstration of life form x becoming life form non x (if that weren't the case you would not have evolutionists expending a great deal of effort and money studying bacteria, yeasts and fruitflies). But it has failed to do so either in the present or in the past by use of the fossil record.
Quote:
I do subscribe to the idea that a Creator created life and that a rich variation can occur within a "kind." This would not be incompatible with what we can actually observe and study in nature...life adapts.
Quote:
Speaking of 'Kind' - why don't you rigorously (scientifically) define that for us since you are so much into the scientific method. Adaptation is just another word for evolution. What adaptive mechanisms and boundaries are you suggesting cannot be crossed? Explain this scientifically please. Don't forget to be consistent with your terms.
Adaptation is just another word for evolution?
Why is it that evolutionist like to keep the definition of evolution all encompassing? Could it be to allow everything and anything to be defined as evolution? Really, an evolutionist would point at a Clydesdale and Andalusian horse and say that's evolution instead of variation within a species. Adaptation is a change in plant or animal life that makes it better to live in a particular place or situation. However the plant or animal doesn't become a fundamentally different plant or animal which is what evolution demands to explain the descent from a common ancestor. Bacteria are still bacteria even when they adapt to their environment.
Why don't you rigorously scientifically define "kind" for you since I'm so much into the scientific method?
Why would the links to science papers be a cause for sarcasm? Additionally, I can define "kind" for you but as far as rigorous scientific definition why would you require that of anyone when defining "kind" when evolutionary biologists are still debating what constitutes a species?
What adaptive mechanisms and boundaries are you suggesting cannot be crossed and explain?
I would suggest that "kind" would allow for cross fertility and that the boundary between kinds occurs at the point in which fertilization stops. Sterility would determine the boundaries.Perhaps you can explain how random mutations lead to new body plans when intelligent genetic manipulations under ideal conditions have failed.
I am skeptical about the veracity of this poll, as I am skeptical of the veracity
of mostly all polls, their methods and financiers.
That being said, if there is any accuracy to this poll, it would not be surprising
that after 3 generations of the theory of human evolution being drilled into the
skulls of the population, its belief would rise.
You mean the first article that was a 35 year experiment under ideal lab conditions exploring the limits of natural selection by attempting to force selection on fruit flies (essentially trying to get them to evolve). After 600 generations of fruit flies the investigators observed only minor changes to the fruit flies. The conclusion noted that success is even less likely to occur in the wild.
Did they find evidence that a beneficial mutation became fixed in the population?
Despite observing plenty of mutations weren't the fruit flies resistant to change?
Didn't they postulate that any beneficial mutation was essentially cancelled out by linkage to detrimental alleles? Or that one good mutation to a gene could cause bad effects elsewhere?
Mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, right?
Macroevolution is dependent on random changes in the genetic code to not only yield new species but new families of plants and animals
However, the second article by the Geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany which summarizes decades of research and the outlay of substantial amounts of money indicates the following:
“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. "
"“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
True but the burden of proof is on you (Evolution minded) to show how random mutation and natural selection would be capable of producing the variety of species we have today and which have existed in the past.Evolution claims to provide the answer by the above mechanisms so the burden of proof would be met by observation, repetition or demonstration of the event. Fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria are still bacteria. Evolutionary thinking requires observation, repetition and demonstration of life form x becoming life form non x (if that weren't the case you would not have evolutionists expending a great deal of effort and money studying bacteria, yeasts and fruitflies). But it has failed to do so either in the present or in the past by use of the fossil record.
Adaptation is just another word for evolution?
Why is it that evolutionist like to keep the definition of evolution all encompassing? Could it be to allow everything and anything to be defined as evolution? Really, an evolutionist would point at a Clydesdale and Andalusian horse and say that's evolution instead of variation within a species. Adaptation is a change in plant or animal life that makes it better to live in a particular place or situation. However the plant or animal doesn't become a fundamentally different plant or animal which is what evolution demands to explain the descent from a common ancestor. Bacteria are still bacteria even when they adapt to their environment.
Why don't you rigorously scientifically define "kind" for you since I'm so much into the scientific method?
Why would the links to science papers be a cause for sarcasm? Additionally, I can define "kind" for you but as far as rigorous scientific definition why would you require that of anyone when defining "kind" when evolutionary biologists are still debating what constitutes a species?
What adaptive mechanisms and boundaries are you suggesting cannot be crossed and explain?
I would suggest that "kind" would allow for cross fertility and that the boundary between kinds occurs at the point in which fertilization stops. Sterility would determine the boundaries.Perhaps you can explain how random mutations lead to new body plans when intelligent genetic manipulations under ideal conditions have failed.
It is clear that you never even listened or understood the videos I linked since they addressed the wrongheaded points and assumptions that you raise.
In my OP I said:
'Evolution never permits one thing to 'turn-into' another thing that is fundamentally different. All evolution is just a matter of incremental superficial changes being slowly compiled atop various tiers of fundamental similarities. Thus every new species, genus, or higher taxa that ever evolved was just a modification of whatever its ancestors were. And these successive levels of similarity represent taxonomic clades which will forever encompass all the descendents of that clade no matter how differently they eventually become.'
Yet you say: However the plant or animal doesn't become a fundamentally different plant or animal which is what evolution demands to explain the descent from a common ancestor.
You actually used the same phrasing as my quote, which means you did not read or could not understand what was being conveyed in those videos. You are pedaling false assumptions about what evolution says and means.
As far as the kind issue that is exactly my point - the delineation has not been established. The video actually pointed this out by mentioning that these are useful 'guides' for organizing purposes only they are not rigorous. Yet creationist constantly use the term 'kind' as if it is and at the same time change the goalposts around which they use that term.
Furthermore, the burden is not on me to prove evolution when someone as yourself offers up GOD as the explanation. Sorry, the burden is on you whether or not evolution is correct or not. Let's say evolution is absolutely false - that does nothing to establish God as the answer nor does it even establish a creator of any sort as one.
Finally, I will post a website that deals with all the questions you asked about, not that you will actually read it, and it also has citations that are peered reviewed. I can't dialogue with someone who does not read or grasps the points being made by me or the links I cite.
It is clear that you never even listened or understood the videos I linked since they addressed the wrongheaded points and assumptions that you raise.
YouTube videos are entertainment not science. The clips featuring a Gene Wilder film, a clip of a teenage boy without a soundtrack, and a blurred rapidly scrolling list of references add to the entertainment value rather than credibility.
Quote:
In my OP I said:
'Evolution never permits one thing to 'turn-into' another thing that is fundamentally different.
"Turn into" is not a scientific term but I'm sure you were already aware of that. Lets stick with evolution as defined by institutions of higher education. Evolution teaches that given enough time dogs and pine trees came from a common ancestor.
This central idea of evolution that all life has a common ancestor is likened to how a person and his/her cousins have the same grandmother (at this point you are expected to accept the extrapolation that dogs and pine trees also came from a common ancestor).
Yet you say: However the plant or animal doesn't become a fundamentally different plant or animal which is what evolution demands to explain the descent from a common ancestor.
[color=blue][color=Black]You actually used the same phrasing as my quote, which means you did not read or could not understand what was being conveyed in those videos. You are pedaling false assumptions about what evolution says and means.
No false assumptions...see the above
Quote:
As far as the kind issue that is exactly my point - the delineation has not been established. The video actually pointed this out by mentioning that these are useful 'guides' for organizing purposes only they are not rigorous. Yet creationist constantly use the term 'kind' as if it is and at the same time change the goalposts around which they use that term.
I defined kinds for you
Quote:
Finally, I will post a website that deals with all the questions you asked about, not that you will actually read it, and it also has citations that are peered reviewed. I can't dialogue with someone who does not read or grasps the points being made by me or the links I cite.
See the above about your YouTube postings. Here are some links that would be of interest. Evolution is a complex concept and it would not surprise me that many who accept evolution leave it to the scientists to tell us the truth about it and trust that evolution is firmly established by the fossil record, that all life had a common ancestor as seen by the "tree of life, and that changes we can see in life today can be extrapolated to support endless change over eons of time.
Darwins theory of common descent is contradicted by research. Evolutionary biologists Bapteste and Rose have this to say about it...
Eric Bapteste states, "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” Rose states, "“The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
So as not to be accused of quote-mining here's the entire article. " New Scientist, Uprooting Darwin's
Tree by Graham Lawton. January 24. 2009." (and to be fair both these biologists have not abandoned evolution)...
[scribd]13212131[/scribd]
Scientists point to the fossil record to support that life came from a common origin. However evolutionary paleontologist, David Raup states, "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence then abruptly go out of existence." Additionally, he states, " ironically we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition then in Darwin's time (to be fair I am not aware that David Raup is anti evolution).
The sudden appearance of the diversity of life has caused some researches to question long held views of Darwin's Theory. For example evolutionary biologist, Stuart Newman, notes the following, "...the Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of the several mechanisms - maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type." (he believes in evolution)
For continued perspective on the fossil record lets consider Henry Gee, senior science writer for Nature, a man trained as a paleontologist and as the below article states an active participant in establishing how scientists approach the fossil record. The below review of his book,"In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. Henry Gee. Free Press, 1999, " states, "The consequence of all this, the cladists insist, is that all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions." (Gee believes in evolution and American Scientist is not a "pro creation" publication)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The facts are there for anyone who wants to look, as distinct from providing links to a few scientists who dissent from Darwin and blandly claiming that science and evidence disproved evolution. (It didn't, last time I looked 
) I'm just saying that it is a US protestant thing, and not a race thing.
There are loads of data and observations that speak to macro-evolution that the video touched on and spoke of that you or anyone else has not answered. 
